Support HR 822 by signing petition

[pchewn]

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.

You are wrong on several levels:

1) Driving a car is privilege, not a right. Carrying a gun is a right. Privileges may need licenses. Rights do not.
2) Some people who are STRONG 2A supporters are against this bill. The reasons are:
A) This bill reinforces the concept of requiring a license to exercise a right.
B) This bill gets the federal government involved (somewhat) in the licensing of carry permits.
C) Future federal actions may leverage off of this bill.

 

[deen_ad]

You are wrong on several levels:

1) Driving a car is privilege, not a right. Carrying a gun is a right. Privileges may need licenses. Rights do not.
2) Some people who are STRONG 2A supporters are against this bill. The reasons are:
A) This bill reinforces the concept of requiring a license to exercise a right.
B) This bill gets the federal government involved (somewhat) in the licensing of carry permits.
C) Future federal actions may leverage off of this bill.

A) Not really, it just makes the states recognize others licenses
B) Again, not really, it just supersedes state laws and makes it uniform across the US
C) How? It doesn't change anything other than making it uniform for all those with permits, you just have to remember to follow the other states laws which may be different than your home state.

 

[Dave Workman]

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.

Where are you getting this? There is nothing...NOTHING...zero, zip, nada...about establishing federal standards for a CPL in this legislation. There is nothing about banning OC.
There is nothing about requiring a CPL to purchase ammunition.

IT simply is not there. Just because somebody "thinks" there "might" be "a possibility" for this stuff to come up in the future does not make it a reality.

Speaking only for myself, I am frankly fed up with the BS peddlers who would find something to whine about if you handed them the winning lottery ticket.

 

[pchewn]

A) Not really, it just makes the states recognize others licenses
B) Again, not really, it just supersedes state laws and makes it uniform across the US
C) How? It doesn't change anything other than making it uniform for all those with permits, you just have to remember to follow the other states laws which may be different than your home state.

A) Really, yes. Driving is a privilege. Carrying a gun is a Right. Which one of these 2 statements do you disagree with?
B) (no comment)
C) By itself this bill doesn't change anything else. But in the future, this law can be added to and changed. That is what I fear.

I am a strong supporter of the 2A, and I am against this bill. Comparing rights such as the right to bear arms and privileges such as driving is a recipe for disaster.

 

[mjbskwim]

Where are you getting this? There is nothing...NOTHING...zero, zip, nada...about establishing federal standards for a CPL in this legislation. There is nothing about banning OC.
There is nothing about requiring a CPL to purchase ammunition.

IT simply is not there. Just because somebody "thinks" there "might" be "a possibility" for this stuff to come up in the future does not make it a reality.

Speaking only for myself, I am frankly fed up with the BS peddlers who would find something to whine about if you handed them the winning lottery ticket.

Not yet
But I would guess it would happen soon.
I'm not even a "conspiracy theorist" (OK sometimes) and I just don't believe I want the Feds having anything to do with this
I am NOT ,by any means,associated with or get any info from any anti 2A group. I,my self,just don't trust the feds to handle this appropriately or to my advantage.

 

[deen_ad]

A) Really, yes. Driving is a privilege. Carrying a gun is a Right. Which one of these 2 statements do you disagree with?
B) (no comment)
C) By itself this bill doesn't change anything else. But in the future, this law can be added to and changed. That is what I fear.

I am a strong supporter of the 2A, and I am against this bill. Comparing rights such as the right to bear arms and privileges such as driving is a recipe for disaster.

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.

 

[mpmax]

It will NEVER pass the SENATE. Controlled by Dems-especially from NY & CA. Save your energy, Pres. won't sign it anyway and congress can't override a veto.

 

[pchewn]

Myth: There exists PRO-GUN Legislation.
FACT: Every law that concerns firearms restricts our 2A rights. Show me one that does not.
EXCEPTION: Legislation that REMOVES gun laws is a step in the right direction.

Myth: Expanding the "goodness" or "convenience" of concealed-carry permits is a step in the right direction for 2A rights.
FACT: A permit extends a privilege to a person, not a right. Any legislation that strengthens the concept of requiring any permit to bear arms is a further erosion of our 2A right.

Myth: All people opposed to this HR 822 are anti-gun anti-2A.
FACT: Some very strong supporters of gun rights and the 2A are opposed to this bill.

 

[pchewn]

This is part of HR822 (recently added to the bill). THIS is the kind of thing we do not want to encourage. This will lead to future changes that put further restrictions on the ability to get permits.

Section 3. GAO Audit of the States' Concealed Carry Permit of Licensing Requirements for Non-Residents. This section directs the Comptroller General to audit the laws of each state that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to non-residents, the number of permits issued to non-residents by these states, and the effectiveness of these laws in protecting the public safety. This audit is due not more than 1-year after enactment of H.R. 822.

 

[hermannr]

This is part of HR822 (recently added to the bill). THIS is the kind of thing we do not want to encourage. This will lead to future changes that put further restrictions on the ability to get permits.

Proposed, not adopted. Will you guys quit smoking that funny stuff that makes you speculate all kinds of horrible nightmares.

The anti's are doing a good job with their agenda of divide and conquer. I cannot believe the misinformation you guys are putting forth. Read the bill, that is what is being proposed. It does absolutely nothing except tell all states that allow their citizens to carry, to allow other states citizens that are traveling through their state to carry, AS IF, they had a license from the state traveled in.

I am sure the supposedly big "pro" 2A "supporters" that are against this bill are just a bunch of licensed instructors for UT and FL and they see their income steam going down the tube because no-one would need any concealed license from any state other than their own resident state. These self serving individuals are playing right into the Brady bunches hands, and we are all being pionted at and they are saying look at those fools, they will do our work for us.

I am as much for the 2A being accepted as written as the next guy. I OC'd (no permit) for years before I finally broke down and got my CPL. I still OC, but I also have the CPL for when I have a coat on. I could care less about CC. I would much rather OC everywhere in the US..

However...

I am old, retired, and I am a realist. if we can chip away at the anti platform in any manner that will allow everyone more freedom of movement while armed...I'll take it. The Supreme Court is not going to make national OC legal in my lifetime, and it will take a Supreme Court ruling to ever get that done. The states will never all agree to it...there will always be CA, and MA, and NY, and NJ, and IL, and....

This is a good bill, the best so far, read it before you dream up some anti thing against it. The feds do absolutely nothing here except to tell the states to agree to acknowledge another states license...that is all.

 

[padd54]

I think you need to read this; <broken link removed>

 

[Dave Workman]

I think you need to read this; <broken link removed>

And so?

GOA wants to push its own go-nowhere legislation. At least with 822, there's a chance to advance OUR agenda for a change.

 

[pchewn]

And so?

GOA wants to push its own go-nowhere legislation. At least with 822, there's a chance to advance OUR agenda for a change.

1) So "our" agenda is to get a larger cage and call it "freedom"?
2) "Our" agenda is to endorse further unreasonable federal control through the "commerce clause"?
3) "Our" agenda is to reinforce the unconstitutional concept of requiring permits to carry guns?

Sorry, this is not my agenda. Please don't include me as a supporter of this.

 

[padd54]

And so?

GOA wants to push its own go-nowhere legislation. At least with 822, there's a chance to advance OUR agenda for a change.

Did you even read this;

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 (the bill coming to the floor tomorrow) and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.

And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.

ACTION: Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is "too pro-gun."

Separate legislation H.R. 2900&#8212;supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)&#8212;would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.

Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry

Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry&#8212;where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff's office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.

In recent years, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model. Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and Texas passed a "constitutional carry lite" law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don't like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.

About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

Contact your Representative to send a pre-written message.

Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in "May Issue" States

H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one's residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e., California, Maryland, and Massachusetts), it's nearly impossible for residents to get a permit.

Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive "may issue" states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts "teeth" into that ruling.

Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms "have been shipped in interstate commerce," the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the "commerce" the Founder's envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to "regulate virtually anything &#8211; [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the "full faith and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Respecting the Constitution

Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.

H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Rep. Broun's legislation.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and ask that he or she urge the leaders of the House to amend H.R. 822 to fix its serious concerns. The pre-written letter also asks your Rep. to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

 

[mjbskwim]

Post all you want.

I will always vote NO on this

I will not give the feds any more than I have to.

Let it die

 

[Garg]

I have a question. Seriously. Does the 2nd really give us the "right" to carry concealed? I have always wondered about that. I suppose it's like anything, subject to interpretation, but I am not really convinced it does.

 

[pchewn]

I have a question. Seriously. Does the 2nd really give us the "right" to carry concealed? I have always wondered about that. I suppose it's like anything, subject to interpretation, but I am not really convinced it does.

1) The 2A does not "give" us any rights. The 2A states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to bear arms is a statement of fact as though this right already exists for the people.
The "shall not be infringed" means just what it says -- the government shall not infringe on this right (that the people already have).

2) The 2A does not make a distinction about which people enjoy this right, what arms they have the right to bear, nor the manner in which they bear the arms.


Some STATE constitutions do make a distinction between concealed and (not concealed) in the STATE constitution.

For example: Colorado

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

My conclusion: The US Constitution does guarantee the right to carry concealed. Most state constitutions do guarantee the right to carry concealed (e.g. Oregon). Some do not (e.g. Colorado).
In actual practice, the federal government and nearly every state violate the constitution by passing and enforcing all manner of gun control laws.


One of the few states without a right-to-bear-arms provision is California. I'll let you decide whether or not the lack of that provision in CA's constitution is the reason they have the most restrictive gun laws of any state.