Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by tom sawyer, Oct 28, 2011.
The probability of me signing up for a "whitehouse.gov" account is less than zero. I haven't really liked or trusted any resident of the White House in decades and don't see anyone in the current crop of wannabes that might make me change my mind. I guess I really don't want the White House in direct contact with My House... so I'll pass on this one.
Don't think it's a good idea to have the feds controlling our gun rights,or having another way to harvest more info
Just leave it to the states to handle.Most of the states that don't honor my WA or Utah permits,I don't really care for anyway.
Hey how about those that travel a lot worry about changing the laws of the state they travel to most?
Or travel to the states with good gun laws.
Kind of like voting with your feet (moving to places that have like minded people living there).
But leave it out of the feds' hands
This is a tough one for me: protecting federalism v. my right to carry. mjbskwim, I see your point but sometimes, it is hard to avoid going where you would rather not. I can't carry at work, can't carry while driving to and from work, can't carry when I travel to Kali, which I have to do often because of work.
On the other hand, signing up in a .gov site seems a small price. Name, email and zipcode is nothing compared to what they already have on me since I was born, got my SS, file taxes or even each time I submit a NFA Form to BATFE. Remember that the latter clowns are already under the the Executive.
Our gun rights are already a federal issue. Allowing states to do what they do is why we have the 2nd amendment mess we have in New York, Illinois, California, etc.
Just like how my driver's license is honored in every other state, so should my concealed handgun license.
OK PDX,when you put it that way,it does make sense.
And yeah,they kinda do know most everything about you.
This is a fence sitting issue for me
It's still a violation of the tenth amendment. It's still a bad idea. -And yes, it still won't get signed by Obama.
This is a political, not a substantial bill. Don't fall for window-dressing. There are plenty of anti-control measures that actually fit constitutional muster. -This isn't one of them.
As I said on a previous post/thread, if I have to choose between the 2nd and the 10th, I choose the 2nd. If Obama signs 822, I expect:
* several states demanding other states to rise their standards to closely match their own higher standards or else, s
* some out-of-state CHL/CCW holders may get arrested anyways just because,
*states like Kali will take it to the Federal courts.
Will be a mess for a while. But we have to stay the course.
California,NJ,NY,Massachusetts will all have it in court for years.Probably Oregon ,too
And yes the cops will be told to still arrest you for now,just to make sure it's your permit
And it will entail finger printing so all states can identify you after you are detained.
Heck go read the thread about the Oregon MC cop who made up her own rules.
I doubt it will ever come to fruition and I'm still not sure I want it to get started
Just in case no one else has already posted it somewhere, here you go:
So civilian75,are you going to be the first to go to jail and fight this in every state?
Cause that's what will happen in the states I mentioned above.
They arrest you,they hold you till you raise bail,then they either make you an example or just take $10-20k of your funds to fight it
If it passes.somebody better organize a road trip with a bunch or CC lawyers that want to challenge it
But how? Concealed means concealed ,right? So it would only come down to when an individual needs to use their weapon.
That's when your individual S would HTF and you would go to jail for brandishing and or illegal CC in said state.Not to mention what would happen if you actually killed the MF that started the whole thing.
Sure,sure you would eventually be released and some charges dropped,but it will cost a ton of grief and will take a lot of change before the states like California just back down and accept the law.
This is really nothing like a CDL ,where the OTR truck drivers are most definitely needed for interstate commerce.
Those states probably don't care about the small numbers of people they effect in the CCW category.
Heck,they're going to come or go anyway,carry permit or not.
Whether you like that bill or not,you gotta love this part all by itself:
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms
Showdown looming on national concealed carry
Next Tuesday, Nov. 15, the U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on legislation that would require all states to honor the concealed carry licenses or permits issued by other states, and the bill H.R. 822 is taking fire from certain corners on both sides.
Showdown looming on national concealed carry - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
I'll let it slip away
Keep the feds out of this
False alarms over natl CCW legislation only help anti-gunners
This week, perhaps as early as Tuesday, the House of Representatives will vote on HR 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, and hysteria about this legislation is not merely coming from the usual gun prohibitionist corners.
False alarms over nat
You definately do not understand the intent of this legislation. The feds have told no-one to do anything, except treat a CPL the same way they treat an automobile drivers license. Nothing more, nothing less. An automobile is a much more dangerous weapon than a firearm, yet all of the states agreed to recognize the others license to operate...now, with firearms, the states can't seem to get this same type of agreement done.
Anything you have heard that is against this legislation, I do not care where it came from, originated in the anti 2A movement. There is no attempt to control here. There is an attempt to make travel as save in your state, and any other state you may wish to visit. read the history of the Sullivan laws in NY...you will see what I am talking about.
I am suprised so many gun advocates are so against a uniform acceptance of CHL nationwide. It would sure beat having to get a CHL from WA, ID, OR, UT just so we can carry in (most) states. I personally like the idea that my CPL from WA would carry over to far away places like OR and ID... Just my opinion though...
As A WA CPL holder, you are already ok in ID, though ID is not ok in WA...but then, of course, OR is their own beast and acknowlegde no-one but themselves.
Sure, passage of this bill would get you some (temporary) convenience. But long-term I think it is a trojan horse.
Step 1: Pass this bill. CPL permits issued by states are federally forced to be recognized by other states. You pay a fee and go through various registration/checks/training to exercise your right to carry. (For which other rights do you need to go through this process?)
Step 2: Federal Standards update to ensure that all of the CPL's that the states are issuing meet "Federal Standards". These new standards are more restrictive than most existing state standards. There is now a Federal fee too. Oh, by the way, the Feds now "need" to keep track of the CPL's because their standards and fees are being used.
Step 3: Most states ban open-carry and just have carry with CPL's.
Step 4: A CPL is required to buy a gun or ammo.
Step 5: A CPL is required for EACH gun you intend to carry. The fees are increased too.
At the end of the process, you have national registration of guns, registration of people carrying guns, higher fees, no open-carry, and permits are as hard to get as they are in CA. I don't think we want this. It is not in our best interests to trade a little short-term convenience of CPL reciprocity for federal participation in the handgun carry-license process. (A process that should not even exist!)
This entire bill is designed to reinforce the concept of requiring a license in order to carry a gun. We should all be against that concept.