National Right To Carry - HR 822

[BJMANIS]

I think it has something to do with the 60 vote thing. So even tho the good guys are in the minority, they can still kill a bill in the Senate. I think, I think.

 

[GBuck]

I'm kiiiiinda leary about this. Either way, I don't think it will have an effect on Indiana's LTCH, but it could change how or what other states we can carry in once the Feds get control. IMO Obama will sign it. He seems to be johnny on the spot when it comes to political moves to try bringing himself toward the center during campaign time.

 

[71silverbullet]

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov
Read over the amendments attached to this bill. This is not something that we want passed.
Pay close attention to amendments 4, 6, and 8.
#4: A national data base of all permit holders?
#6: Live fire training?
#8: Notify a state that you plan on being there and carrying?
I don't know about you all but I don't want to notify the police that I will be traveling to there state with my gun.
What about people who work across the state line? You gonna call them every day and say here I come?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I don't like how many times it says "concealed". If the bill itself says "concealed" does that really mean we have to conceal it all the time? Since Indiana doesn't require concealment are we OK to OC in other states or just the states that already allow it? Are all of the amendments approved and going with the bill? They make it worse to transport across state lines than it is! And it STILL doesn't help with Illinois!

 

[Yup!]

So why does the NRA back it?

 

[public servant]

Any idea when the Senate vote is scheduled?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

So why does the NRA back it?

Because the NRA has an agenda of passing legislation? The emails I get from them don't even explain the bill at all, they just trash everyone who opposes it. I also don't like organizations telling me what bills I want or should support. If I like it, I will support it. Not because others tell me what I should think.

 

[caverjamie]

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov
Read over the amendments attached to this bill. This is not something that we want passed.
Pay close attention to amendments 4, 6, and 8.
#4: A national data base of all permit holders?
#6: Live fire training?
#8: Notify a state that you plan on being there and carrying?
I don't know about you all but I don't want to notify the police that I will be traveling to there state with my gun.
What about people who work across the state line? You gonna call them every day and say here I come?

The bill passed without those amendments included. Only amendment #10 was included...

 

[71silverbullet]

Yes, after further research it looks like all those mentioned amendments were voted down. I thought 9 was the only one that passed. Sorry for the misleading info I should have done better research before posting misinformation.

 

[mk2ja]

H.R. 822: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Legislative Digest - GOP.gov
Read over the amendments attached to this bill. This is not something that we want passed.
Pay close attention to amendments 4, 6, and 8.
#4: A national data base of all permit holders?
#6: Live fire training?
#8: Notify a state that you plan on being there and carrying?
I don't know about you all but I don't want to notify the police that I will be traveling to there state with my gun.
What about people who work across the state line? You gonna call them every day and say here I come?

So why does the NRA back it?

"All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated."

NRA-ILA :: U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation

 

[JettaKnight]

Glad it passed. Some are unhappy because it has no allowance for states like VT that do not require a license and support a constitutional view. That said, I'd like to see it passed. It would be "better" than what we have now.

I'm sure if it goes into law Vermont residents will demand a token piece of paper, not unlike Indiana.

 

[JettaKnight]

Because the NRA has an agenda of passing legislation? The emails I get from them don't even explain the bill at all, they just trash everyone who opposes it. I also don't like organizations telling me what bills I want or should support. If I like it, I will support it. Not because others tell me what I should think.

The NRA is like Fox News, all hype and sprinkle of hard evidence. I never take anything they same as fact until I verify it elsewhere. It's kind of sad that they resort to same rhetoric they rail against. I would prefer that they just use honest facts and let the chips lay where they fall.

However, I'm still a life member.

 

[ATM]

This bill would do nothing to reverse State infringements of the 2A.

It would placate many pro-2A folks and anger the antis with a transparent "win", but in doing so would solidify the idea that the Right to keep and bear arms is fair game for regulation and/or restriction at every level of government.

That's no right at all.

 

[JettaKnight]

This bill would do nothing to reverse State infringements of the 2A.

It would placate many pro-2A folks and anger the antis with a transparent "win", but in doing so would solidify the idea that the Right to keep and bear arms is fair game for regulation and/or restriction at every level of government.

That's no right at all.

I disagree. This sends a clear message that American demand to be allowed to CC without undue impediment. You can argue about the theory of 2A and what is a right, but this actually does something.

And furthermore, I fail to see how this is prelude Federal IDs, registrations, bans, U.N. treaties, etc. If there was the votes in Congress and a strong drive, they don't need something like this to infringe on our rights (remember the Clinton era laws?) they just do it.

As for placating, nothing in the past has ever shown that either side in the fight will ever stop until they completely get there way. Every piece of legislation is just another line in the tug of war.

What I do expect is for the NY attorney general to take this law to the Supreme Court if it's enacted.

 

[ATM]

I disagree. This sends a clear message that American demand to be allowed to CC without undue impediment.

Clear message? Are you sure you weren't reading HR 2900?

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=112_cong_bills&docid=f:h2900ih.txt.pdf

That's a clear message, a simple proposal, and it doesn't cause the future fight any new hurdles that I'm aware of.

822 just isn't very good at all, IMO.

 

[dyerwatcher]

Obama wouls never sign it - it would really **** off his whacko base

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Obama wouls never sign it - it would really **** off his whacko base

You mean like how his signing the repeal the park ban drove away contributions?

This bill would do nothing to reverse State infringements of the 2A.

Nothing is too strong.

Under 822 I can carry in Oregon, South Carolina and New York, unlike now.

It would be something, but I concur it is not a magic sword.

However, I remind everyone there are no magic swords in the law. This is why we had a Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1871, 1875 . . . inter alia.

 

[ATM]

Nothing is too strong.

Under 822 I can carry in Oregon, South Carolina and New York, unlike now...

I didn't mean to imply that there wouldn't be a few nice benefits for a few people when they travel outside of their resident state, there obviously would be.

But you're right, nothing (as in zero) was the wrong word. I believe the sum total effect would actually end up being in the negative.

 

[GIJEW]

Between the language of the 2A, SCOTUS ruling on it, and the constitutional requirement that states have to recognize the official acts of other states, I wonder why this approach is necessary?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

the constitutional requirement that states have to recognize the official acts of other states

You may be under a misapprehension about how the Supreme Court views "full faith and credit". It is not the precatory Constitutional Law that GOA is spouting.

I wonder why this approach is necessary?

Because Mississippi is not allowing African Americans to vote. So you need the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 1871, 1875 . . . 1964, inter alia.