Support H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011: Sup [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Support H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011: Sup


mchlhotrod
09-14-2011, 05:24
Please help support the right to carry bill that will allow us who are unfortunate to live in a non constitutional state bring back the second amendment and join the rest of the nation. Please sign the petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-hr-822-the-national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2011-support-hr-822-

Gunnut 45/454
09-14-2011, 10:44
Nope I will not - the 2A already gives me the right to carry/tarvel! How about we support repealing the Fed and State laws that Infringe upon the 2A instead of adding new laws with more restrictions!:steamed:

TexasFats
09-14-2011, 11:58
Pass this bill and, I guarantee, within two years we will have legislation setting federal standards for states CCW licensure. Likely, such standards would impose "may issue" policies nationwide. I think that the NRA is off-base on this one. They are not looking far enough ahead. I oppose this. We need to try a different idea.

Besides, the feds are already too involved in gun laws.

mchlhotrod
09-14-2011, 12:25
Good points.

RGbiker
09-14-2011, 12:27
Pass this bill and, I guarantee, within two years we will have legislation setting federal standards for states CCW licensure. Likely, such standards would impose "may issue" policies nationwide. I think that the NRA is off-base on this one. They are not looking far enough ahead. I oppose this. We need to try a different idea.

Besides, the feds are already too involved in gun laws.

This.

I remember well when the Feds got involved in setting standards for state gun policies. We got hammered with Gun Control Act 1968, and later the Biden Crime Bill (AWB).

Let the individual states sort out gun CCW permit standards.

dnuggett
09-14-2011, 18:07
It was a bad idea in all the other threads and it's a bad idea in this one.

Hef
09-14-2011, 18:47
Pass this bill and, I guarantee, within two years we will have legislation setting federal standards for states CCW licensure. Likely, such standards would impose "may issue" policies nationwide. I think that the NRA is off-base on this one. They are not looking far enough ahead. I oppose this. We need to try a different idea.

Besides, the feds are already too involved in gun laws.

I agree wholeheartedly.

paperairplane
09-14-2011, 20:26
Gun nut - dead on right son.

1gewehr
09-15-2011, 08:49
Pass this bill and, I guarantee, within two years we will have legislation setting federal standards for states CCW licensure. Likely, such standards would impose "may issue" policies nationwide. I think that the NRA is off-base on this one. They are not looking far enough ahead. I oppose this. We need to try a different idea.

Besides, the feds are already too involved in gun laws.

Absolutely ON TARGET!!!:supergrin: Imagine, ATF eventually regulating ALL CCW permits. Does THAT sound like a good idea?

TheJ
09-15-2011, 09:13
Pass this bill and, I guarantee, within two years we will have legislation setting federal standards for states CCW licensure. Likely, such standards would impose "may issue" policies nationwide. I think that the NRA is off-base on this one. They are not looking far enough ahead. I oppose this. We need to try a different idea.

Besides, the feds are already too involved in gun laws.

This is basically my fear as well.

codecowboy
09-15-2011, 20:59
While I love the idea of nationwide reciprocity...I think this bill totally tramples State's Rights.

TexasFats
09-16-2011, 11:59
While I love the idea of nationwide reciprocity...I think this bill totally tramples State's Rights.

I think that it gives federal politicians a reason to get much more involved in CCW licensure. I can easily see the anti-gun crowd, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, and all of the other usual suspects, claiming that, since states have to have reciprocity with all state-issued CCW permits, then there should be a "national standard" for licensure. Can you imagine what that national standard would be if that bunch wrote the law?

Jerry
09-16-2011, 12:36
I think that it gives federal politicians a reason to get much more involved in CCW licensure. I can easily see the anti-gun crowd, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, Schumer, and all of the other usual suspects, claiming that, since states have to have reciprocity with all state-issued CCW permits, then there should be a "national standard" for licensure. Can you imagine what that national standard would be if that bunch wrote the law?

If it were to be like the DMV you could be deaf dumb (not unable to speak but actually stupid) and blind and be “given” a permit. But we all know in reality, since we’re talking about those EVIL guns, you’ll be required to know every law for “every” state and be required to sign a contract that if you shoot/kill a bad guy you will surrender yourself for a life term in prison. After all they wouldn’t want us to hurt the BGs. It’s for the children. :whistling:

When I first heard of this, several years ago, I thought it was a terrific idea. Then I had time to think about it and listen to what others thought of it. It’s one of the worst things we could ever allow the Federal Government to get it’s hooks into.

OldCurlyWolf
09-17-2011, 02:12
Please help support the right to carry bill that will allow us who are unfortunate to live in a non constitutional state bring back the second amendment and join the rest of the nation. Please sign the petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/support-hr-822-the-national-right-to-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2011-support-hr-822-


Not a snowball's chance in hades. Too many "unintended consequences" possible to happen if this bill passes.:steamed:

Front Sight
09-17-2011, 18:15
OldCurleyWolf is absolutely right!!!!!
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is a clear example of the US gov't staging the both Kennedy's and Kings death to further restrict firearms owner ship.
Remember it was then Congressman Schumer that fought hard to ban firearms from air planes, by everyone. If only one person hand a loaded firearm on those planes thousands of people would be alive today. We would not be spending billion of dollars on several wars.
Gov't is going in the back door to keep people from owning a firearm while saying they support the 2nd amendment, by turning as many people into a felon using new laws.
The very people we have elected are turning us into a 3rd world country.
Vote them all out! Do it for the children.

DrBob
09-26-2011, 08:12
I've read these sort of posts on almost every forum to which I subscribe. There is always someone who says, "The Feds will screw it up/take our guns/change requiriments/ etc. etc. It is self evident that most of these people are showing knee jerk responses to something they call state's rights.

THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE!

PLEASE READ THE NRA POSITION AND THE FACT vs MYTH portion of this URL
NRA-ILA :: National Right-to-Carry Bill Under Attack (http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=7106)
before getting paranoid about it.

We really need this bill and we need everyone who carries and travels outside their own state to get behind it. It is important that politicians understand that the 14th amendment counts and that the 2nd amendment means that peoples right to carry is a constitutional right that transcends state borders.

TexasFats
09-26-2011, 11:16
Dr. Bob, I have read both the NRA's condescending reply to my concerns and your diatribe. I got the same "official" response when I emailed them. I have watched the gun grabbers for over 40 years now. Believe me, we can't give them an inch. Of course, this legislation merely says that states have to respect each others' carry permits. But, neither you nor the NRA can guarantee that, one or two or five years from now, some bozo like Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, McCarthy, et. al., won't come back with the argument that, "We make states honor each others' carry permits so there must be a uniform standard for licensing". And, neither you nor the NRA can guarantee that we will have the votes in congress to defeat such a proposal.

By the way, I am a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA, a Life Member of the TSRA, and an annual supporter of the SAF. But, this whole thing looks like a classic case of, "Be careful what you ask for--you might get it". Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences works overtime in politics. Also, remember that we just barely won Heller and McDonald by one vote on the Supreme Court. Let's not let those successes lure us into an attitude of hubris that could undo all that has been accomplished for gun rights during the last 25 years.

By the way, I can also call myself Doctor, with an earned Ph.D. in Financial Economics, just in case you wanted to know, or even if you didn't want to know.

Foxtrotx1
09-26-2011, 11:44
Dr. Bob, I have read both the NRA's condescending reply to my concerns and your diatribe. I got the same "official" response when I emailed them. I have watched the gun grabbers for over 40 years now. Believe me, we can't give them an inch. Of course, this legislation merely says that states have to respect each others' carry permits. But, neither you nor the NRA can guarantee that, one or two or five years from now, some bozo like Schumer, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, McCarthy, et. al., won't come back with the argument that, "We make states honor each others' carry permits so there must be a uniform standard for licensing". And, neither you nor the NRA can guarantee that we will have the votes in congress to defeat such a proposal.

By the way, I am a Benefactor Life Member of the NRA, a Life Member of the TSRA, and an annual supporter of the SAF. But, this whole thing looks like a classic case of, "Be careful what you ask for--you might get it". Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences works overtime in politics. Also, remember that we just barely won Heller and McDonald by one vote on the Supreme Court. Let's not let those successes lure us into an attitude of hubris that could undo all that has been accomplished for gun rights during the last 25 years.

By the way, I can also call myself Doctor, with an earned Ph.D. in Financial Economics, just in case you wanted to know, or even if you didn't want to know.

Amen.

Spats McGee
09-28-2011, 09:43
I agree wholeheartedly with TexasFats on this. Once the federal government gets involved in CCLs and licensing, it opens the door to more federal regulation.

Besides, I read the bill, and my take on it is this: If you have a CCL, you'd be able to CC in any other state which does not expressly prohibit CC. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything in any state where CC is prohibited by law. So it still wouldn't allow any CC in Illinois, for example, so it's no help to them.

As for me personally, an Arkansas CHCL is already honored in 37 states according to handgunlaw.us. The risks of this bill greatly outweigh any benefit to me.

This is a matter best handled at the State level.

J_Rico
09-28-2011, 13:40
I agree with the OP on this one.

Everyone says this will let the feds get there hands in gun control. Well they have been mucking around in gun control since the 30's. A little too late to keep them out.

People claim that the feds will set license standards. There is no provision for this. Could they add it later? Sure. They could also set standards for licensure right now w/o ever passing reciprocity.

I also disagree that it has anything to do with state's rights. States should not be able to trample the RTKBA. The RTKBA is a prexisting right protected (not granted) by the 2A. IMO the law does not go far enough.

I am a big proponent of state's rights, but state's have long been trampling individual rights. This is a small step in the right direction.

IMO this law should not be necessary. I believe that each citizen has the pre-existing right to be armed just about anywhere. Sadly, the states and the feds have trampled this right for decades. This law is a step back towards the right path.

WoodenPlank
09-28-2011, 17:01
I agree with the OP on this one.

Everyone says this will let the feds get there hands in gun control. Well they have been mucking around in gun control since the 30's. A little too late to keep them out.

People claim that the feds will set license standards. There is no provision for this. Could they add it later? Sure. They could also set standards for licensure right now w/o ever passing reciprocity.

I also disagree that it has anything to do with state's rights. States should not be able to trample the RTKBA. The RTKBA is a prexisting right protected (not granted) by the 2A. IMO the law does not go far enough.

I am a big proponent of state's rights, but state's have long been trampling individual rights. This is a small step in the right direction.

IMO this law should not be necessary. I believe that each citizen has the pre-existing right to be armed just about anywhere. Sadly, the states and the feds have trampled this right for decades. This law is a step back towards the right path.

This sums up my feelings nicely. The federal government is empowered (and required) by the constitution to ensure that our rights are protected. The second amendment is the right to keep and BEAR arms. Ensuring that all states accept each others carry licensing is nowhere near an infringement on state's rights.

Acujeff
09-30-2011, 20:01
Notice the difference between the myths and the facts.


Anti-Gun Attacks on National Right-to-Carry Bill Continue
Friday, September 30, 2011

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7117

As we reported last week, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011" has recently come under attack from some expected and unexpected quarters. The usual culprits-- i.e., the anti-gun media, like the New York Times and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign; and New York City Mayor Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns--are a given. Regrettably, though, even some so-called "pro-gun" organizations are attacking this critically important bill.

Introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, H.R. 822 would enable millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)

H.R. 822 would mark a major step forward for gun owners' rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized. Dozens of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity, others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition completely.

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within their boundaries.

Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on each "states' rights." But states don't have rights, only powers. And while many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" to oppose this bill, several provisions of the Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the 14th Amendment (please see related article from a recent Grassroots Alert).

It is important to note that, despite what a handful of self-proclaimed "pro-gun" activists say, the bill would not create a federal registration or licensing system, nor would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit. Rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed "gun rights" supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in Congress or any legislature, have an agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the FACTS about a few of their claims:

Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in "need" requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

FACT: H.R. 822 doesn't require -- or even authorize -- any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes "only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out" the GCA's provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

Myth: H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

FACT: H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states' laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming, where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822 would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required, could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of H.R. 822.

Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.

TRUTH: By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn't an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.

H.R. 822 is a good bill for gun owners. Don't listen to false and misleading accusations. Read the bill yourself and read our fact sheet to get the facts. Then, please contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year.

TexasFats
10-03-2011, 11:17
Acujeff, I have never said that this bill contains anything other than a requirement that states honor each other's carry permits. My objections are based on a lifetime of watching politicians. HR822 is just inviting future federal standards for licensure. Unfortunately, some gun owners are being short-sighted over this and assuming that we will always be able to defeat something like Boxer's Senate bill that is currently dead but could be given new life by this legislation. After all, if the feds require states to honor each other's permits, what could be wrong with the establishment of "uniform standards of licensure"? It is about a 100% probability that, if 822 becomes law, within five years we will have uniform standards by federal mandate. And, they don't need to pass it as a stand-alone bill. The anti's could just attach it to something like an appropriations bill that many in congress would be afraid to vote against and the president would not want to veto just because of that one amendment. Remember, that is how we got Obama to sign off on carry in National Parks and one or two other things--they were attached to legislation that he didn't dare veto.

Don't underestimate the sneakyness of anti-gun politicians.

DrBob
10-03-2011, 14:56
[QUOTE=TexasFats;17995731]Acujeff, I have never said that this bill contains anything other than a requirement that states honor each other's carry permits. My objections are based on a lifetime of watching politicians. HR822 is just inviting future federal standards for licensure. Unfortunately, some gun owners are being short-sighted over this and assuming that we will always be able to defeat something like Boxer's Senate bill that is currently dead but could be given new life by this legislation. After all, if the feds require states to honor each other's permits, what could be wrong with the establishment of "uniform standards of licensure"? It is about a 100% probability that, if 822 becomes law, within five years we will have uniform standards by federal mandate.... QUOTE]

Yeah, look what happened with the LEOSA in 2004 and the right of armored car drivers to carry in all states. Both of those brought an end to R2KBA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

TexasFats
10-03-2011, 15:46
[QUOTE=TexasFats;17995731]Acujeff, I have never said that this bill contains anything other than a requirement that states honor each other's carry permits. My objections are based on a lifetime of watching politicians. HR822 is just inviting future federal standards for licensure. Unfortunately, some gun owners are being short-sighted over this and assuming that we will always be able to defeat something like Boxer's Senate bill that is currently dead but could be given new life by this legislation. After all, if the feds require states to honor each other's permits, what could be wrong with the establishment of "uniform standards of licensure"? It is about a 100% probability that, if 822 becomes law, within five years we will have uniform standards by federal mandate.... QUOTE]

Yeah, look what happened with the LEOSA in 2004 and the right of armored car drivers to carry in all states. Both of those brought an end to R2KBA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act

Just how many lashes with a nine-corded whip should I give myself for daring to contradict Dr. Bob and the all-wise, all-knowing NRA and for refusing to let them tell me what to think? After all, I am merely a Ph.D. Financial Economist. I don't know anything at all.

LEOSA and armored car guards don't involve as many people as CCW permits in the first place, and the second place, those people can be considered special cases. Comparing what happened with them and this bill is definitely apples and oranges. In the second place, it took 50 years to get gun rights as messed up as they were. We have made a lot of progress in the last 25 years and I, for one, don't want to see it messed up because we got impatient.

Personally, I would like to see a constitutional amendment that eliminates the power for for states to require a license for carry, open or concealed, for any citizen of legal age and with a clean criminal record. I would like to put the whole issue beyond the reach of simple legislation in either congress or the state legislatures. But, we aren't going to see that happen soon. I still say that 822 could easily open a can of worms that we don't want open. Anyway, we will see what happens. But, if this bill becomes law, and, a few years from now, it is used as a pretext for "common standards of licensure" that takes the sort of mess that people live with in Kali, NJ, or NY nationwide, I'll be around to say, "I told you so".