RINOs who voted against H.R 822 National National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity

[NIFT]

Although H.R. 822 passed 272 to 154 with 43 Democrats voting for it, there were 7 RINOs who voted against it:

Justin Amash, MI-3
Robert Dold, IL-10
Mike Grimm, NY-13
Peter King, NY-3
Dan Lungren, CA-3
Bob Turner, NY-9
Rob Woodall, GA-7

Perhaps a respectful e-mail, phone call, and-or letter is in order for each of the above seven Republican-In-Name-Only folks.

Peter King (NY) and Rob Woodall (GA) were the most surprising.

House Vote 852 - H.R.822: On Passage - NYTimes.com

 

[T.Lex]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time calling republicans who voted against HR 822 "RINOs." There are principled reasons for not supporting HR 822.

Those representatives may or may not be RINOs, but I don't think you can gauge solely on the HR 822 vote.

Just IMHO.

 

[femurphy77]

Other than perhaps GA and MI, you're surprised?

 

[BJMANIS]

I received a post card from Rep. Mike Pence when the bill came out of committee. This was only two or three weeks ago. I did not think it would pass this quickly. Now it is the Senate. Who knows how they will vote and then there is anointed one in the Oval office.
I certainly wish the whole country was like Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming where no permit is needed to carry.

 

[melensdad]

I have to raise the BULL**** flag on this.

You are saying that ALL of these folks are RINOS but in fact some of the GOP members who voted against this voted against it because this law EXPANDS the role of government, via a reach in the "commerce clause" so those "so-called RINOS" are really simply voting in a strict constitutionalist way!

Don't let the truth get in the way of insulting some of the GOP members who simply want to uphold the ideals of the constitution!

I know of at least 2 or 3 on that list above that objected to the expansion of federal power as their reason for a NO vote. They are the NON-RINOS who are simply consistent.

It should be noted that SOME of the folks on that list may be anti-gun, I'm not saying ALL of them are pro-gun Constitutionalists who oppose this bill for its expansion of federal power. But let's not paint everyone as our enemy when some of them are strong friends.

 

[NIFT]

Sorry--still RINOs, especially when Representatives from the same states voted for the bill.

 

[melensdad]

Sorry--still RINOs, especially when Representatives from the same states voted for the bill.

So you are now defining a RINO as someone who upholds the Constitution and defends state's rights?

Again I'll have to raise the BULL**** flag on you.

If you want to say that they oppose a bill that the NRA supports, then to that I will agree. But to claim they are RINOs is simply wrong.

• It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
• By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
• In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
• The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

But you call these folks RINOS?

Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”

Rob Woodall (R-GA): “If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law”​

 

[melensdad]

Yet here is an ANTI-GUN amendment that was added by a GOP member who voted for the bill, yet you don't call this guy a RINO?

RINO Republican David Reichert's (R-WA) amendment instructs the GAO to:

“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”​

Please instruct me, and everyone here on INGO, exactly where in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right!?! You can bet anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this "study," to push for some type of national carry license.

WTF is the matter with the portion of your brain that controls your ability to see how illogical this is? 2 guys who defend individual rights are who you call RINO but the member of the GOP who inserts an unconstitutional amendment you don't lump into the RINO category. Do you even know what a RINO is?

 

[T.Lex]

Just a note about legislative gamesmanship. Sometimes, someone who doesn't like a bill, but doesn't want to come out against it, will offer an amendment that they know will fail, in the hopes that it may make the whole bill fail. Or, they offer something that allows them to say that they weren't for it or against it, they just wanted more information about whether it was a good idea or not.

That kind of amendment tells me the guy had political issues back home with the bill, and needed some kind of cover.

 

[Expat]

IF they are consistently voting against the expansion of the Federal powers and for State's Rights then I can give them a pass. But I am always amused by the politicians who have consistently worked to grow Leviathan suddenly worry about states' rights at moments like this. Additionally I think the ship has sailed for this argument of states' rights anyway. The SCOTUS has incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the states. I personally have problems with the whole concept of incorporation but at this point, it is what it is.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Easy, Melensdad. While we often rail on here against the Constitutionality of the LTCH and other state permission slips, they've served a good purpose: They allow us to show the fact that of all the LTCHs issued, fewer than two of every thousand are revoked (in, IIRC, a four year period) for ALL causes.

(That is to say, if you get busted for two public intox charges in three(?) years and are convicted, you might lose your LTCH due to no longer being a "proper person". It may have nothing to do with the handgun. You might not even OWN a firearm, let alone have committed a violent crime with one... but if it's revoked, it would count in the stats.)

Having a study of the ability of LE to verify validity of those permission slips... that's an easy one and can only come out in our favor:

LEO: Hi, Utah? I have a CFP for a citizen here... number #1234567 showing last name Heston, first name Charlton.... It's valid? Thank you very much.

No, it is not Constitutional; we're in full agreement there. All I'm saying is that I don't see how asking the various LEAs if they've had problems verifying can work against us, provided they are truthful in their replies. (They're allowed to lie to citizens. To Congress? Not so much. Sure, they can still do it, but not with impunity.)



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hoosierdood]

I would have voted against it too.

 

[bigg cheese]

melensdad makes good points, but I have only one. If it passes, everyone who didn't want it to pass will still carry in compliance with the new law, in all states .

 

[Expat]

melensdad makes good points, but I have only one. If it passes, everyone who didn't want it to pass will still carry in compliance with the new law, in all states .

You got that right. I can't wait to drive to Ohio.

 

[melensdad]

Easy, Melensdad . . .

Now it's a problem pointing out fact? I simply pointed out these representatives were not RINOs and had legitimate concerns.

 

[MAJB Retired]

Noted!

 

[Bill of Rights]

Now it's a problem pointing out fact? I simply pointed out these representatives were not RINOs and had legitimate concerns.

No, it's not a problem. I just didn't want personalities getting into it. I agree with you that the reps are not RINOs solely for a vote against this bill. As you said, they might be, but if so, it's shown in other ways. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Wild Deuce]

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time calling republicans who voted against HR 822 "RINOs." There are principled reasons for not supporting HR 822.

Those representatives may or may not be RINOs, but I don't think you can gauge solely on the HR 822 vote.

Just IMHO.

I have to raise the BULL**** flag on this.

You are saying that ALL of these folks are RINOS but in fact some of the GOP members who voted against this voted against it because this law EXPANDS the role of government, via a reach in the "commerce clause" so those "so-called RINOS" are really simply voting in a strict constitutionalist way!

Don't let the truth get in the way of insulting some of the GOP members who simply want to uphold the ideals of the constitution!

I know of at least 2 or 3 on that list above that objected to the expansion of federal power as their reason for a NO vote. They are the NON-RINOS who are simply consistent.

It should be noted that SOME of the folks on that list may be anti-gun, I'm not saying ALL of them are pro-gun Constitutionalists who oppose this bill for its expansion of federal power. But let's not paint everyone as our enemy when some of them are strong friends.

Have to agree.

Continued distortion of the Commerce Clause is enough reason to oppose this bill.

Don't go "easy," Melensdad. Going "easy" is what got us in this mess (begging permission from lesser men to excercise a God given right). Keep pointing out the "apparently not so" obvious.

BTW ... I don't think there was anything in the way of personalities involved in Melensdad's response. But then again, I've met the man so I know where he's coming from. I hope nobody takes my response personally.

 

[patience0830]

I don't see how an email or letter or phone call from a citizen that doesn't vote in their district is gonna have any effect on how they vote. If you can't help elect them, they don't care.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

IMO, melensdad is right here. House bill 2900 is the good one that fixes all of those issues and maintains states rights.