HR 822 IT'S OFFICIAL!!!!

[RB87]

The Civil War was fought over States rights to have slavery.

That and taxes.

 

[knuckle Head]

WHile I believe in states rights I also believe that American citizen should not have to worry about stupid things like whether or not a state honors another conceal carry. If I live in Washington state and want to drive across to Maine, I should not have to worry about where I was as far my ability to carry a gun to protect myself and my family. I hope in time we can get rid of a bunch of stupid laws that requires law biding citizens to get permission to carry a concealed weapon, but for know I will accept this as apositive note and email my senators and push them to sign onto a copy of this or better bill in the senate and I hope everyone here will do the same.

We cannot change everything at once we must work to change things to the better a little bit at a time.

 

[Grunwald]

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."

It is your problem and not the writer's if you think that Obango is a racist term. It only shows where your mind gravitates to whenever Mr. Teleprompter is referred to by anything but his name.
Besides if you imply that Obango is derived from the bongo drums, then are you going to try to insinuate that somehow he's from Cuban descent?

 

[Grunwald]

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.

If it is your opinion that there is no such thing as states rights, then I am afraid your words about living within the framework of the constitution sound very hollow. Only thing I would suggest is that you read the 10th amendment.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

It is your problem and not the writer's if you think that Obango is a racist term. It only shows where your mind gravitates to whenever Mr. Teleprompter is referred to by anything but his name.
Besides if you imply that Obango is derived from the bongo drums, then are you going to try to insinuate that somehow he's from Cuban descent?

Nice try...but you can't turn this one around. You can't play the "it is your fault if you are offended" card. That only works when there is some legitimacy to the word being used. The term "obongo" is a play on a slander term for native Aficans. Care to try and explain what you think it means or why anyone would need to use it instead of just saying Obama? I suggest you do a web search. You will find a good portion of paragraphs that contain the word Obongo also include the "n" word. It clearly shows a lack of class and good thinking and does nothing to help promote a cause.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

If it is your opinion that there is no such thing as states rights, then I am afraid your words about living within the framework of the constitution sound very hollow. Only thing I would suggest is that you read the 10th amendment.

I guess you are having trouble understanding the argument. State rights do not supersede the constitution. People have been conditioned to use the buzz phrase "state rights" when it is not applicable. State's rights is not a get out of free card every time some state wants to supersede a constitutional right. State's do not have the right to act against established rights guaranteed by the constitution. A state cannot declare free speech null and void within their borders.

 

[Grunwald]

I guess you are having trouble understanding the argument. State rights do not supersede the constitution. People have been conditioned to use the buzz phrase "state rights" when it is not applicable. State's rights is not a get out of free card every time some state wants to supersede a constitutional right. State's do not have the right to act against established rights guaranteed by the constitution. A state cannot declare free speech null and void within their borders.

Actually it seems that you are having trouble understanding my original post. Don't focus on just the 1st paragraph of it, but take it in it entirety.

I was going to go into a long dissertation which points and counterpoints, but all that would accomplish is that 95% of the people reading it would fall asleep and smash their faces into the keyboard. So in order to spare them the experience, I will just leave it alone.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Actually it seems that you are having trouble understanding my original post. Don't focus on just the 1st paragraph of it, but take it in it entirety.

I was going to go into a long dissertation which points and counterpoints, but all that would accomplish is that 95% of the people reading it would fall asleep and smash their faces into the keyboard. So in order to spare them the experience, I will just leave it alone.

Actually, some of us have been to law school and know that what you really mean to cite is the 14th Amendment. Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

In other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from violating most of the Bill of Rights. The argument for states' rights also has to do with the 10th Amendment and the states being able to legislate where "(T)he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The one Amendment is prohibitive, and the other is permissive.

What the Civil War was really about was not taxation or slavery. It was about political control of the rural, agricultural southern states by the densely populated urban, industrial northern states. We have a very good example on a state-wide scale in Oregon right now where densely populated urban counties control the actions of citizens in the rural, agricultural, sparsely populated rural counties. Let's hope we don't settle the situation the same way.

 

[PlayboyPenguin]

Actually it seems that you are having trouble understanding my original post. Don't focus on just the 1st paragraph of it, but take it in it entirety.

I was going to go into a long dissertation which points and counterpoints, but all that would accomplish is that 95% of the people reading it would fall asleep and smash their faces into the keyboard. So in order to spare them the experience, I will just leave it alone.

I understand your argument, but many people stated they supported this bill even though they also supported state rights. They acted as if they thought the two things were contrary to each other. As if states had a right to cancel out the 2nd amendment.

 

[Grunwald]

Actually, some of us have been to law school and know that what you really mean to cite is the 14th Amendment. Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.

In other words, the 14th Amendment prohibits the states from violating most of the Bill of Rights. The argument for states' rights also has to do with the 10th Amendment and the states being able to legislate where "(T)he powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The one Amendment is prohibitive, and the other is permissive.

What the Civil War was really about was not taxation or slavery. It was about political control of the rural, agricultural southern states by the densely populated urban, industrial northern states. We have a very good example on a state-wide scale in Oregon right now where densely populated urban counties control the actions of citizens in the rural, agricultural, sparsely populated rural counties. Let's hope we don't settle the situation the same way.

Right, of course; lawyers know best because the rest of us unwashed masses just are not sophisticated enough to read and understand for ourselves.

 

[smurf hunter]

I got a nice reply from Rep Reichert (8th dist WA):

Thank you for contacting me to share your views regarding concealed carry firearms legislation. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this matter and welcome the opportunity to respond.



As you may know, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) on February 18, 2011. This legislation would allow any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any state. This bill would not create a federal licensing system, but requires states to recognize another state's concealed carry permits. Currently forty-nine states have laws providing for concealed carry of handguns; only Illinois state law prohibits concealed carry of firearms by civilians under any circumstances. State laws do vary in terms of eligibility standards for legal concealed carry of handguns as well as whether a permit is even required, as in the case of Vermont, Wyoming, Alaska, and Arizona.



Some have expressed concerns that this legislation might limit the rights of gun owners residing in states where no permit for legal concealed carry is required. In response to this concern with H.R. 822, on September 13, 2011, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act (H.R. 2900). This legislation permits those authorized to carry certain concealed weapons in their state of residence to also carry them across state lines. This legislation would address the question of reciprocity if a state does not require a permit for legal possession.



On November 16, 2011, the House of Representatives considered the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). This legislation passed with my support by a vote of 272-154. I supported this legislation because it maintains our Second Amendment rights while also eliminating any confusion that results from differing state laws on legal concealed carry. This legislation ensures that law-abiding citizens traveling from one state to another do not have to worry about possible infringement of their Second Amendment rights at a state border.



As the former Sheriff of King County and law enforcement officer for 33 years, I've found myself on both ends of a gun. So I understand the public safety concerns and the concerns of police officers across the country. That's why I offered an amendment to this bill that would require the Government Accountability Office to look into law enforcement's ability to accurately and efficiently verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms licenses. My amendment passed with bipartisan support. I am confident law enforcement has the information and tools they need to protect themselves and the community while the rights of law-abiding citizens are preserved.



I believe Congress has a responsibility to ensure that legislation holds up to Constitutional scrutiny, and I am a strong defender of the Second Amendment, which permits citizens to keep and bear arms. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to help find effective ways to prevent armed criminal activity without violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.



Once again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch with me. Your interest and input are valued and I hope to hear from you in the future regarding other matters of importance. I encourage you to visit my website and sign-up for my monthly e-newsletter at Congressman Dave Reichert - US House of Representatives to learn more about other issues impacting the 8th Congressional District and our nation. You can also follow my work online and receive frequent updates on legislation being considered in Congress by visiting me on Twitter (Dave Reichert (@davereichert) on Twitter) and Facebook (Congressman Dave Reichert | Facebook).

Sincerely,

David G. Reichert
Member of Congress

 

[pchewn]

From Rep Reichert

On November 16, 2011, the House of Representatives considered the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822). This legislation passed with my support by a vote of 272-154. I supported this legislation because it maintains our Second Amendment rights while also eliminating any confusion that results from differing state laws on legal concealed carry. This legislation ensures that law-abiding citizens traveling from one state to another do not have to worry about possible infringement of their Second Amendment rights at a state border.

Actually, this legislation does not maintain our 2A rights, because it reinforces the concept of requiring a permit to carry a gun. (A CPL to carry concealed)

 

[knuckle Head]

But everyone has to admit it is a step in the right direction for 2A, making a neighboring state recognize you states conceal carry.

If there is a clear argument as to how it is harming the 2A, please state it clearly showing data to the argument.

 

[smurf hunter]

From Rep Reichert


Actually, this legislation does not maintain our 2A rights, because it reinforces the concept of requiring a permit to carry a gun. (A CPL to carry concealed)

While you aren't incorrect, having national reciprocity by some means is more supportive of 2A that not having it at all.
Would you have preferred all who supported HR-822 voted against it, so you could continue complaining?

I'll take glacial progress in my preferred direction over a stale mate anytime.

 

[mjbskwim]

Y'all sound like a bunch of idiots trying to be smarter than the last.

I would guess most skim over this type of thread and ask "whats the point here?"

 

[fredball]

I heard it passed the house but still has to go thru the senate ,not a snow balls chance in HE double hockey sticks

 

[Hawaiian]

Baby steps. That is how the anti's chip away at gun rights. We can do the same. One step at a time. If you go full bore, it will not pass. We can still get there, just have to do it one step at a time.

 

[knuckle Head]

I heard it passed the house but still has to go thru the senate ,not a snow balls chance in HE double hockey sticks

That is why Sent both of my Senators an email, telling them to pass a matching bill, note I did not ask, I told them. If they do not I will rally against them next election.

I recommend everyone here do the same U.S. Senate: Senators Home

 

[Both Eyes Open]

Thank you Knuckle Head for that link. I have just expressed my views to my Sentaors! Feels good to "attempt" to be part of a solution! We will see what happens.

 

[Stomper]

Y'all sound like a bunch of idiots trying to be smarter than the last.

I would guess most skim over this type of thread and ask "whats the point here?"

LMAO!! Thanks... now I must wipe the"spitted out" coffee from my monitor!!