Contact your representative now for ccw

[Alaska444]

I take issue with folks that state we are only slowly winning the CCW war. I found the map Al Norris published in another thread over a month ago. Take a look at all of the green counties in the US. We have an overwhelming state level support of CCW even in the states like CA where half of the counties are permissive may issue. Why do we need the Feds to stick their nose in business best left to the states. There are only a few hold out areas best dealt with by the courts.

Yes, let's be patient.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...4&postcount=44

[youngunz4life]

This won't make it easier, it will make it harder as states that are current somewhat "lenient" by anti groups will be politically forced to adopt the stricter new standards that WILL become part of the Federalization of your state's CCW laws

Do you concede that IF the states are still allowed to make their own decisions on how residents get their CCW & this bill doesn't regulate that, this bill is a good thing?

I would agree with your post if I thought what you said would happen, and that is why I ask. I want to know if you'd be ok IF that didn't happen.

Just like a good business, a micromanaging boss can be a very bad thing. That is why it is still important to allow the states to have the authority with how they do things.

[Rusty35]

youngunz4life

Do you concede that IF the states are still allowed to make their own decisions on how residents get their CCW & this bill doesn't regulate that, this bill is a good thing?

I would agree with your post if I thought what you said would happen, and that is why I ask. I want to know if you'd be ok IF that didn't happen.

Just like a good business, a micromanaging boss can be a very bad thing. That is why it is still important to allow the states to have the authority with how they do things.

I agree it would be a good thing if nothing bad happens.

Heck I even believe the federal government has an obligation to step in.
With out the amendments this bill could have been a good thing.
This bill is a Trojan Horse the way it read right now.

[oneounceload]

Why do you think the Feds, once they get involved, will just step out of the middle of this? They WON'T - look at their "wars" - on poverty, education, terrorism, etc. all just another part of a bloated system where their 'one-size-fits-all" mentality just doesn't work.

TSA was supposed to be a small department, now it is the fastest-growing group.
The feds will do the same with this - there will be departments set up, meetings, and some form of uniformity to devise - and if you think NYC, DC, etc. will allow open, blatant CCW to become allowable, you are missing it entirely - they will push for THEIR form of uniformity - with a lot of regulations, costs, etc................

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by youngunz4life

Federal law trumps state law. The passing of the bill(when it happens) will cause some other things to happen pretty immediately in my opinion whether just before, at the same time, or immediately after. I am confident - obviously there are people that disagree with me, but it is good we have a record of this thread for when this all eventually "goes down" - that when this bill passes it WILL NOT MATTER that Illinois states that they do not want people CCWing in their state. federal law will trump state law and IL will only be able to restrict residents like you.

To add further, I believe that the law will state the only CCWs valid for United States travel will be CCW issued from your home state. i do not believe someone from NV getting a non-resident CCW from UT will be covered(at least at first). Now if IL still says that they will not issue CCW for their home residents, that will be a sight to see but it seems you all would allow it.

Federal law does trump state law, but 822 does not apply to states that flat prohibit CC. Take a look at Section 3: relating to 926D(a)(2): http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h112-822

[youngunz4life]

Spats, I appreciate that. Thanx.

oneounceload, so do you concede what I said IF I end up being right about that(even though you think it won't come to that)? *refer to my post127*

[oneounceload]

It becomes moot if nothing changes with the states - you will still be allowed to carry in states like mine (FL) from just about everywhere else, while you'll still NOT be able to carry in IL-so what will it have accomplished then?

Federal intervention in ANYTHING inevitably leads to restrictions, whether it was with holding highway money to get state to raise the drinking age or similar - if you really do not think this will go the same way..............

well, let's just say I would be very surprised, as they haven't done anything right when it comes to usurping states' rights for some well-intentioned, but misguided national "uniformity"

[American Made]

Federal law trumps state law.
------------------------

Not if the federal law is outside of the Constitution. The only authority the States delegated can be found in Article 1 section 8...

The supremacy of the constitution is an admonition to all departments, both state and federal, that they were bound to obey the restrictions it imposes. In relation to the federal government, it literally declares that its laws must conform to its exclusive and concurrent powers; and in relation to the state governments, it implies, that theirs must also conform to their exclusive and concurrent powers. It neither enlarges nor abridges the powers delegated or reserved. And it is enforced, not by an oath to be faithful to the supreme constructions of the federal departments, but by an oath to be faithful to the supremacy of the constitution.

[C0untZer0]

I take issue with folks that state we are only slowly winning the CCW war. I found the map Al Norris published in another thread over a month ago. Take a look at all of the green counties in the US. We have an overwhelming state level support of CCW even in the states like CA where half of the counties are permissive may issue. Why do we need the Feds to stick their nose in business best left to the states. There are only a few hold out areas best dealt with by the courts. - Alaska444

I agree and I have a feeling that we are close in Illinois.

Here is a link to a progressive (liberal) talk show, where the host and the guests talk about a number of issues, including changing attitudes in the African American community (typically responsible for electing staunch anti-gun politicians), they talk about a lot of different things - they start talking about gun control at around 11:16 in the piece.

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/news//3-69.php

We only need 3 state representatives to change their vote.

Three representatives ! That's 3 votes away from a super-majority that would over-rule a veto and trump home-rule laws for the municipalities that try to ban carry within their city limits.

A lot has changed since the issue was debated last, Wisconsin passed their CCW law, and Illinois has become the only state that doesn't allow some sort of carry. The fact that Illinois is the last state is a huge factor in making politicians think twice about current Illinois gun law.

It's possible that if we didn't have 2 court cases going on right now that we would be debating the Illinois carry law again. Now things are on hold on the legislative front while everyone waits to hear what the courts say.

Even if the bill was defeated again, gubernatorial elections are not that far away.

[Al Norris]

Originally, I was for this bill, as it stated within its "Findings" section that the bill was being enacted on 14th amendment authority.

That, despite the authority cited in the Congressional Record (Commerce Clause). However, by the time the Bill left the committee, that section and related language were stripped from the Bill. What was voted on (and passed) and sent to the Senate was a bill whose sole authority is as stated in the Congressional Record:

[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 27 (Friday, February 18, 2011)]
[House]
[Page H1252]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office (www.gpo.gov)

By Mr. STEARNS:

H.R. 822.
Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant to the following:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, Commerce Clause

Sorry, using the Commerce Clause is simply a further expansion of FedGov power that I cannot support.

[Alaska444]

Great point Al, yes, I agree, since it is not based on 2A arguments, it is indeed a Federal power grab and one done quite openly. It is plain and simply a Trojan horse.

[icedog88]

Best case: the IDEA of the bill passing, forces states to adopt a more universal form of reciprocity between ALL states therefore eliminating the need to pass it!Then we could all be happy. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

[Al Norris]

As long as the original findings were left intact, I was willing to support the legislation.

Those findings cited both Heller and McDonald as binding case law and the 14th amendment as authority to expand the right to keep and bear arms. That is what a court would look at, should the law be challenged.

That no longer applies. That authority was removed, and the only authority that is left is that which was stated in the C.R. Using the Commerce Clause, any Congress can add any restrictions/qualifications it so decides.

The Supreme Court has as recently as 2004, decided that there are no limits to that Congressional authority (See Raich). Barring something unusual happening with the upcoming "Obama Care" hearings at SCOTUS, how would we stop the Congress?

Besides, we are well within range of getting the right to carry, via the Courts. That is more permanent than some legislation that can be turned (any which way) at any point the legislators decide.

[Alaska444]

Today, 06:56 AM #137
icedog88
Senior Member

Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 256
Best case: the IDEA of the bill passing, forces states to adopt a more universal form of reciprocity between ALL states therefore eliminating the need to pass it!Then we could all be happy. Hey, a guy can dream, right?
__________________
"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]

Travel and reciprocity are not that much of an issue for me personally since I spend almost all of my time on the west coast. The only two states in my travel zone that I don't have reciprocity are Oregon and CA. This bill will not do anything for the CA issue, but as the map that Al put forth shows, we are now winning in over half of the CA counties right now and I suspect more will come soon.

As far as Oregon, I could drive 8 hours and pick up an OR CCW permit anytime, but since I rarely go to OR at this point, it is also a moot issue as well.

Thus, this bill will not do anything of benefit for me at this time. It will on the other hand give congress the authority to Federalize the entire CCW permit process which is NOT a good thing my friends. Stop this Trojan horse and just be patient with where we are heading. In 10 years, the sea of green on Al's map will likely be the answer.

In addition, with a few noted exceptions, you can in almost every part of the US with the combination of a couple of CCW permits from different states, meet your travel needs right now. Stay the course and don't let the camel under the tent, he will never leave.

[icedog88]

Travel and reciprocity are not that much of an issue for me personally since I spend almost all of my time on the west coast. The only two states in my travel zone that I don't have reciprocity are Oregon and CA. This bill will not do anything for the CA issue, but as the map that Al put forth shows, we are now winning in over half of the CA counties right now and I suspect more will come soon.

As far as Oregon, I could drive 8 hours and pick up an OR CCW permit anytime, but since I rarely go to OR at this point, it is also a moot issue as well.

Thus, this bill will not do anything of benefit for me at this time. It will on the other hand give congress the authority to Federalize the entire CCW permit process which is NOT a good thing my friends. Stop this Trojan horse and just be patient with where we are heading. In 10 years, the sea of green on Al's map will likely be the answer.

In addition, with a few noted exceptions, you can in almost every part of the US with the combination of a couple of CCW permits from different states, meet your travel needs right now. Stay the course and don't let the camel under the tent, he will never leave.

Lucky for you! On the east coast, not so much. Been over that a couple of times in this thread. Waiting for the laws or the politicians to change here is like watching kids pick their noses. It's gross, doesn't turn out well, and they are at it forever!

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by icedog88

. . . .Waiting for the laws or the politicians to change here is like watching kids pick their noses. It's gross, doesn't turn out well, and they are at it forever!

LOL! I am absolutely going to steal that line.

[icedog88]

Have at it! Tried to think of something that made my stomach turn. There it is lol.

[Alaska444]

Dear Icedog,

NY, RI, NJ, MD, MA, CT are grouped into a true dead zone. However, outside of that, IL, CA and Hawaii, the rest of the US is doing quite well.

I don't believe this legislation will help those states at all. They are completely Blue and not likely to change anytime soon. So even with this legislation, it is not likely that you will get what you want anyway.

Let the courts do what they will and hope that the Bill of Rights will over turn their intransigence.

Sorry to hear your situation.

[icedog88]

It may or may not, but it gives us a glimmer of hope. Call it grasping at straws or whatever. If you starve a man and offer him rancid meat 3 weeks later, it may look like prime rib, and he will probably eat it. The fact is I have a permit to carry in CT and that's fine if I wish to never leave. Someone is offering me a chance to change that. I'm hungry and am gonna eat! No disrespect to anyone on here but most people who are against it, already have reciprocity and one state doesn't have a carry provision at all so no issue there to begin with. Ahh, then there's us Easties. We who have great jobs and family here. Basically stuck in this bastion of liberal dems...yeah, no picnic here. Hell, if I lived out where I either didn't have to leave my state, or the neighboring state recognized my permit, I'd probably not want it to pass either. But alas, I do not. Never judge a man til you walk a mile in his shoes. Hell, I'll do you one better. Never judge a man til you've paced in his cage.

[Spats McGee]

icedog88, for my own education, I just took a look at handgunlaw.us and some of the pdfs relating to the northeast US (including CT). Y'all really do have my sympathy.

With that said, I still think that we'd all be better off with a favorable SCOTUS decision. It is my sincere hope that such a decision is close at hand.

Alternatively, something comparable to the Driver's License Compact, enacted at the state level, would be better for most states. Unfortunately, your state might be one of those that won't enter into such a thing.

[icedog88]

Spats, I agree completely with that assessment in regards to SCOTUS, but barring that, what else but HR822 do we have? Not really too bad here in CT. Except that I have a STATE issued permit but in two TOWNS, no carry of ANY kind is permitted. Weird, but ok, whatever. Everytime I read state laws concerning carry, the next time I carry(which is usually when I get home from work in RI) I feel like my carrying a gun is a "dirty little secret". Such is the attitude here. Told point blank by a police chief in MA, there is no way I would get a permit to carry for an out of state resident even with my CT carry permit. Told by a couple of gun store owners in RI, that unless I own a business in RI, damn near impossible to get one there either. My permit class instructor tried to get one in RI since he trains LEOs in RI AND is a certified NRA instructor for 25+yrs. DENIED! Had to go all the way up to the AG in RI and after 2yrs he finally gets one. It's these incidents, and many others like them, that make us lap up any scraps. But thank you for the sympathy. It means that people are beginning to see how some of us can see this as our only alternative to SCOTUS decision.

[Hardcase]

Originally Posted by Al Norris

That no longer applies. That authority was removed, and the only authority that is left is that which was stated in the C.R. Using the Commerce Clause, any Congress can add any restrictions/qualifications it so decides.

Somehow the Commerce Clause has lately become the wildcard of the Constitution. Since virtually anything that anybody does involves some sort of interstate action, the Commerce Clause has been twisted to cover it.

I agree with you, Al, that justifying this bill's Constitutionality with the Commerce Clause is a loser for the people - regardless of the bill's merits, it helps to broaden what I think should be a rather narrowly applied part of the Constitution.

On a different note, in the "one size fits all" federal legislation argument, add No Child Left Behind to the list. There appear to be several reasons why HR 822 is not a great idea.

[C0untZer0]

The feds use the Commerce Clause the way same way the Dept of Education justifies sticking their fingers in every pie if it even remotely has anything to do with education.

What's worse though is when giant bureaucracies battle it out for turf. The U.S. Dept of Agriculture controls most school lunch programs, and the Department of Education thinks that they should control school lunch programs… so they duke it out.

Here’s an idea – let the parents of the kids that are going to the school decide what’s best for their kids to eat if they’re going to eat at school.

So lets say that 822 becomes law.. and some states don’t comply… what agency checks and reports on that? BATFE?

[GI Sandv]

Hardcase said,

Somehow the Commerce Clause has lately become the wildcard of the Constitution. Since virtually anything that anybody does involves some sort of interstate action, the Commerce Clause has been twisted to cover it.

Not to split hairs, but the federal government has been bastardizing the commerce clause for three quarters of a century. See cases such as National Labor Rights Board vs. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937) (saying that anything produced in one state and which has some effect on interstate commerce may be federally regulated); Wickard vs. Filburn (1942) (during WWII Congress enacted mandatory limits on grain production for sale. One farmer who grew wheat solely for his own use was told that he had to abide by the Congressionally mandated limit because refraining from buying someone else's grain could affect interstate commerce); Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) (civil rights cases where Court used Commerce Clause rather than the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause to declare racial discrimination illegal in business settings). I point these cases out to show that 1) broad use of the Commerce Clause has been ongoing for decades; 2) the Commerce Clause is often used to justify things which may be politically popular but legally untenable; 3) once in effect, legislation justified through the use of Commerce Clause becomes nearly impossible to attack and further forms the basis for later, more expansive legislation.

To Al's point, justifying this legislation under the 2nd and 14th Amendments and the recent Heller and McDonald cases would have made this a different piece of legislation. It would have, in effect, said that Congress is only able to pass this law because it is in accord with laws already in effect, namely the Constitution. (Although, as discussed much earlier in this chain, such unnecessary federal legislation is redundant and, in my mind, not preferable.)

However, as it stands, justification under the Commerce Clause communicates that the individual right to bear arms on one's person (whether concealed or open) from state to state stems from Congress and not from the states and not from the Constitution. Instead, according to the Constitutional interpretation now in place, you may possess a weapon in your house. If you can carry it concealed in your home state, that authority stems from your state. If you can carry it to another state--if H.R. 822 becomes law--you may do so because Congress is kind enough to allow you to do so. So, no one can prevent you from owning a weapon in your home (unless you're a felon), the States have authority to issue or not issue carry permits, and Congress gets to say whether you can carry outside your home state. When someone decides to sue because of an issue resulting from carrying in another state, the question will be what Congress intended by passing this bill, not what the Founders intended when they wrote the Constitution. There will be no Constitutional protection in such case and if such a case ever reaches the Supreme Court, they will rule on the laws passed by Congress rather than pertinent Constitutional issues. So, not only are we giving Congress more power here, we are postponing and perhaps permanently preventing the Supreme Court from ruling on the extent of the 2A's authority to carry a weapon for self-defense.

[batjka]

A New Yorker here...

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

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

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

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

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

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