34Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThere is some confusion now on what exactly was voted on.
I am trying to get clarification.
It may have been a resolution calling for the vote on 822.
I have pulled ,my column.
My apologies for the apparent error.
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |  |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
HR 822 IT'S OFFICIAL!!!!
There is some confusion now on what exactly was voted on.
I am trying to get clarification.
It may have been a resolution calling for the vote on 822.
I have pulled ,my column.
My apologies for the apparent error.
Last edited by Dave Workman; 11-15-2011 at 07:52 PM. Reason: WRONG INFORMATION
Thanks for the update!
Currently accepting donations of guns and ammo. Multiple calibers accepted.
And you are welcome!Originally Posted by Nutty4Guns
Spread this link far and wide. People deserve to know what happened and who voted for and against.
Looks like Oregon's Walden voted yeah (I'd expect that) but pleasantly surprised that DeFazio and Schrader were yeahs.
I'm torn - I really believe that state's right should trump feds but individual rights trump state's rights. I don't like the precedent but I suppose this is about the best we could expect at the federal level.
As much as I believe in the 2nd, I also believe in states' rights. This bill stinks as it is the Federal government attempting to run a rough shot over State governments (no matter how appealing I find the end result).
Now, if they passed a law re-affirming the 2nd and stating that anyone who is not a criminal has the right to own an carry firearms, concealed or not, I would be for it. This however is just another hack job by hack politicians,.
Dave, I watched the hearings today and my understanding was that they were going to vote on the rule today 11/15 and take a full house of represenatives vote on the total bill tomorrow 11/16. Said they had to deal with the 10 proposed amendments first (8 democrat and 2 republican). That hearing was surreal and to watch how poorly many of the Democrats opposing the bill even understood what was being discussed or subject knowledge. It was embarrasing and entertaining to watch. - G
While that might explain in some small way how the error was made, it does not erase the fact that I goofed. My apologies to every other member here.
CORRECTION: House vote on ‘consideration’ of HR 822
CORRECTION: This column reported earlier Tuesday evening that the House had passed HR 822.
That was in error.
CORRECTION: House vote was on
Dave, no apology needed, at least not for me. Thanks for all you do to keep everyone here informed on the ever changing gun rights legislation and news. Keep up the great work! Thanks! - G
THIS TIME IT'S OFFICIAL!
Some of the arguments the anti-gunners offered were simply mind-boggling.
House passes CCW bill as antis plead states’ rights
Wednesday afternoon, the House of Representatives, by a 272-154 vote passed H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, and as earlier indicated, one look at the vote breakdown says it all about how Republicans and Democrats are split on the subject of firearms rights.
House passes CCW bill as antis plead states' rights - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
I love how there was so much talk about state's rights...when there is no such thing. *shrug* corps are people and states have rights now I suppose. The big down side is that the bill has been gelded untill there is some sort of tracking for country wide CCW holders to be verified. Which boggles the mind since they can't even do that for a driver's license and there are more car fatalities per year.
My shooting spots;
http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=...768438,0.85968
I just received this email form NRA-ILA
U.S. House Passes NRA-backed
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.
“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”
H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.
This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.
“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.
Ok, so I'm a little confused....the House passed the bill but doesn't it ultimately have to be signed off by the President to become law? It would appear to me the battle is only a third of the way done.
Yes. The Anointed One can still veto it.
States should NOT have the right to deny the constitution. States do not have the right to declare blacks non-persons, states do not have the right to deny due process, states do not have the right to deny liberty to certain classes, and the states do not have the right to deny someone the right to arm themselves against abuse and/or harm. Get that "State's rights" garbage out of your head. That is just a buzz word the powers that be fill you head with when they want to make things easier on themselves. States have the right to govern INSIDE the framework of the constitution...period. There is no real world example of any successful nation that has complete freedom of individual states...because it would not function as a union.
That is if it makes it through the senate...which is unlikely (but possible).
Rest assured, Obongo will.
Why do you have to sully the conversation with derogatory and racist terms? (and don't try that "it isn't racist" crap unless you have ever seen Obama sit in the desert playing a drum) Can you not add valid points without resorting to childish name calling and pandering to people's worst impulses? It really makes you look like the one that is wrong, and not Obama, regardless of the content of the message. People who read this forum who might otherwise say "I see where these people are coming from" now say "Wow, a bunch of bigots are screaming about guns."
Isn't that one of the primary reasons the Civil War was fought?
That's right. It would need 60 votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate, which is unlikely. It will probably never get to the President's desk.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks