GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-22-2011, 18:53   #21
AC37
SystemicAnomaly
 
AC37's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Provo, UT
Posts: 7,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
Oh and why don't they just push for Constitutional carry across the USA? Why didn't they support the attacks on the Chicago handgun ban?
Bingo.

Guys, this goes back to the enforcing the laws already on the books.

The Second Amendment isn't a suggestion, it isn't just the law; it's the highest law of the land.

We don't need a bill authorizing the Constitution. We need to be getting rid of ones that abridge it.
AC37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2011, 19:44   #22
Acujeff
Senior Member
 
Acujeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,912
There's been a lot of misguided, unfounded, and just plain incorrect information regarding H.R. 822 -- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011."

The TRUTH About H.R. 822
Link to article:
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7147
__________________
Read "America's 1st Freedom" NRA's monthly magazine:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Get free NRA-ILA legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Acujeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 04:58   #23
Toorop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Midwest.
Posts: 3,925
NRA = Anti-American and Anti-Gun laws and ideals.
Toorop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2011, 05:09   #24
TangoFoxtrot
OIF 04-05
 
TangoFoxtrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Nowhereville, USA
Posts: 4,037
Blog Entries: 2
The NRA????
__________________
G21 Club: 0685 -Tact. SG 7048
S/P Club: 109 - .40 Club: 0255
Black Rifle-SWMP15S1647

Last edited by TangoFoxtrot; 10-23-2011 at 05:09..
TangoFoxtrot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2011, 11:13   #25
Ummagumma
Senior Member
 
Ummagumma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 509
NRA is not as interested in protecting the 2A as in protecting theirs and the gun industry profits.

I believe in 2A but I also believe in the "well regulated" part. And I don't want to introduce either the NJ or the AZ scenarios into my own state. No total prohibition and no permits for someone who just got off their anti-depressants. I much prefer having some ability to influence the law on my local level.
Ummagumma is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2011, 17:58   #26
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ummagumma View Post
NRA is not as interested in protecting the 2A as in protecting theirs and the gun industry profits.

I believe in 2A but I also believe in the "well regulated" part. And I don't want to introduce either the NJ or the AZ scenarios into my own state. No total prohibition and no permits for someone who just got off their anti-depressants. I much prefer having some ability to influence the law on my local level.
Do you believe that I (from KS) deserve the same rights as you do from your state...when I'm in your state? Because when I visit your state, your state treats you differently from how your state treats me. How is that ok and where in the Constitution do you find it ok for a state to exercise their right to treat their own state residents different from out of state residents when it comes to basic fundamental rights like self-protection?
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 07:38   #27
EAJuggalo
Senior Member
 
EAJuggalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,989
Send a message via AIM to EAJuggalo Send a message via Yahoo to EAJuggalo


I just read the whole bill, took about 5 minutes, it's only 6 pages. I don't see anything bad about this bill. In fact I think it would be a good thing for the residents of NJ, MD, CA, HI, MA and NY. It doesn't stomp on states' rights, it requires states to treat residents and non-residents the same.
__________________
People killed by:
MN permit holders 3
MPLS Light Rail 9
Updated 3-22-13
EAJuggalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2011, 07:47   #28
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,682
HR822 is not about gun rights or 2a. It's about the reciprocity of CCW. Each state regulates this issue, therefore, they need to continue this process. Having the feds involved is not a good thing.

I had the honor of visiting with some of my liberal friends this weekend. They brought this bill up for conversation; they were very well versed in the details; they supported it. These folks believe guns are for hunting (with lots of regulations) and home self-defense (registration/regulations).

I doubt this bill will get passed by the senate, maybe the house; however, King Obama won't sign it on the surface. This bill will cause more problems down the road when the Dems have control. The NRA has clout in congress; but not enough to ALWAYS protect and PREVENT this bill from being changed by the Brady Bunch politicians in the future.




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2011, 15:30   #29
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
I just read the whole bill, took about 5 minutes, it's only 6 pages. I don't see anything bad about this bill. In fact I think it would be a good thing for the residents of NJ, MD, CA, HI, MA and NY. It doesn't stomp on states' rights, it requires states to treat residents and non-residents the same.
Well, it wouldn't be a "trojan horse" if all you had to do was READ it on the surface to understand the implications.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 07:26   #30
EAJuggalo
Senior Member
 
EAJuggalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,989
Send a message via AIM to EAJuggalo Send a message via Yahoo to EAJuggalo


Red, if this passes the Senate it is going to President Obama. There are currently over 250 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle in the House. How are we going to improve anything if we are too afraid of the Brady Bunch of Bullspitters to put forth any legislation? How is forcing President Obama to take a position on one side or the other of a major gun issue in an election year a bad thing? Let him veto it and explain to democrats that don't live in the country's ten largest cities why he did so.
__________________
People killed by:
MN permit holders 3
MPLS Light Rail 9
Updated 3-22-13
EAJuggalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 08:01   #31
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
Red, if this passes the Senate it is going to President Obama. There are currently over 250 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle in the House. How are we going to improve anything if we are too afraid of the Brady Bunch of Bullspitters to put forth any legislation? How is forcing President Obama to take a position on one side or the other of a major gun issue in an election year a bad thing? Let him veto it and explain to democrats that don't live in the country's ten largest cities why he did so.
Obama has never vetoed a single bill that hit his desk. This won't be the first one.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 08:13   #32
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 34,898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toorop View Post
NRA = Anti-American and Anti-Gun laws and ideals.
More like "Toorop= Anti-American and Anti-Gun laws and ideals" in thread after thread after thread. The NRA, on the other hand, is the ONLY gun rights organization that has done ANYTHING for us and the only one that will.

Unfortunately, the NRA understands the absolute necessity of approaching expanding and protecting gun rights as a chess game that requires long term strategy. Anti-NRA gun owners want it to be a checkers game where they blindly attack at every opportunity, regardless of strategy or long-term harm.

Then there are those like Toorop, best I can tell from his posts, who just masquerade as gun owners online to try to sabotage things like the NRA by spreading false dissent.

To the antis, nothing we say will help.

To those of you who think fighting for gun rights is as simple as a checkers game and the NRA is selling out by not jumping the other guy's checker at every opportunity, please educate yourself in law and politics, so you can help instead of harm.
__________________
"Liberal" is when you hire others to use a guns to protect you, so you can pretend guns aren't necessary.

Last edited by Bren; 10-28-2011 at 08:16..
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 08:37   #33
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
Red, if this passes the Senate it is going to President Obama. There are currently over 250 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle in the House. How are we going to improve anything if we are too afraid of the Brady Bunch of Bullspitters to put forth any legislation? How is forcing President Obama to take a position on one side or the other of a major gun issue in an election year a bad thing? Let him veto it and explain to democrats that don't live in the country's ten largest cities why he did so.

This bill will not be signed by King Obama as a stand alone bill. If it does, I'll buy you a bottle of Jack's finest. (within reason ) This bill has to have both house/senate to pass the same one. There is already a different bill, IIRC HR2900.

This is not being afraid of the Brady Bunch; it's allowing states to control things in their own state; then work with other states.

Having King Obama take a stand on it is not relevent. He's made it pretty clear, he likes more gun control. However, he did sign a pro-gun bill by allowing carrying in Nat'l Parks, depending on state laws. He would have not signed it if it wasn't attached to a larger bill he was in favor of, credit card reform. This is the only way he will sign this bill.

As I have stated earlier, this isn't a 2A issue; it is regulating CCW on a national level; which the states set the guidelines and should reciprocate with those they want to.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2011, 20:02   #34
Acujeff
Senior Member
 
Acujeff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,912
Most of the misguided, unfounded, and incorrect characterizations circulating lately regarding H.R. 822 have come from the anti-gun groups and media. However, a small number of vocal and supposedly "pro-gun" groups continue to report falsehoods, despite clear evidence to refute their assertions. Though they claim to be on the side of America's gun owners and the Second Amendment, their stance on this measure proves otherwise.

One group claimed H.R. 822 would include anti-gun amendments that would create "disastrous federally mandated infringements on our rights."

But the House Judiciary has already considered amendments to H.R. 822, and all anti-gun amendments offered that would weaken or gut the legislation were defeated.

The same group warns of "a 'study' to control firearm sales over the internet," and decries a "review" process that they claim will provide "a perfect opportunity for more changes." In reality, there was no amendment to study firearm sales over the internet. Period. And the "review" they speak of has nothing to do with adding new anti-gun provisions. The amendment referred to only requires a study of the law's effects, and that study would take place after the law is in effect.

Another group is trying to insinuate that anti-gunners in Congress will support the bill in order to limit our gun rights. In evaluating this ludicrous accusation, please consider that H.R. 822 has not just 245 cosponsors, but 245 pro-gun cosponsors. And -- just as telling -- none of the stalwart anti-gun representatives have signed on. In addition, well known anti-gun groups, including the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have made killing H.R. 822 their top legislative priority. There is no hidden anti-gun counter-plot going on here.

Opponents of the legislation also 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).

Again, and for the record:

H.R. 822 is a GOOD bill and is GOOD for gun owners. The bill ENHANCES Americans' right to self-defense by enabling 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 outside the home. H.R. 822 would require states to recognize each others' lawfully-issued carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

H.R. 822 DOES NOT:

Create a federal licensing or registration system;
Establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit;
Involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit;
Destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

H.R. 822 is headed to the House floor. Please IMMEDIATELY contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7158
__________________
Read "America's 1st Freedom" NRA's monthly magazine:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


Get free NRA-ILA legislative and RKBA e-mail alerts:

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
Acujeff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 08:03   #35
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick!
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,682
More NRA propaganda...no meat; just politics.

Thx Acujeff!



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632
The 10 Ring #00720

R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. JTull7
R.I.P. Mullah (aka El_Ron1) ~ R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 13:42   #36
TexasFats
NRA, TSRA, SAF
 
TexasFats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,264
Acujeff just posted the same condescending reply that the NRA gave me. What this reply does not address is that HR 822 gives the Schumers, Boxers, Lautenbergs, and their ilk an excuse to come back next year with a bill to establish national standards to suit them. All that the NRA ever said when I asked about that and got forceful wanting an answer was, "Then we will fight that." It seems like the NRA is getting a bit over-confident on this.

By the way, drivers licenses are not a good analogy, since the states agreed to honor each others' by interstate compact--not as a result of federal legislation.
__________________
Governments are about the acquisition, extention, and exercise of power by an elite, who will then use that power to rule a peasantry for fun and profit.

Sauron lives, and his orc minions are on the march.
TexasFats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 17:42   #37
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
I sent an email to Schumer and Boxer and Lautenberg, they say they aren't interested (since we're all making things up).

Last edited by kensteele; 10-31-2011 at 17:43..
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 21:47.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,221
311 Members
910 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42