Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Dangers of HR 822? You decide

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    Dangers of HR 822? You decide

    I need your thoughts on this bill. I am sorry to start another thread on this issue but wanted to seperate the other side.




    Some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control.

    Of course, I'm talking about H.R. 822, the so-called "National Reciprocity Act," which could open the flood gates of gun control.

    I'm calling it the National CCW Registration Act.

    While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.

    Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it's only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.

    Now you may hear arguments that this bill doesn't do that, and maybe that's true ... for now.

    Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything ... and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn't count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the "regulations" to carry out the legislative "intent."

    I know many of you are frustrated that you can carry in some states but not others -- I'm frustrated, too.

    I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go, and have worked to expand the ability of citizens to carry in dozens of states.

    I believe I should be able to carry concealed -- without a permit -- in all 50 states. That's what "bear arms" means. Believe me, that's a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.

    But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.

    I understand that many who support this bill sincerely just want their right to carry respected -- but cannot due to the fact that their state or another won't do the right thing.

    But the devil is truly in the details... and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.

    This bill isn't just about the right to carry for self defense -- it's a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

    Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.

    We're talking about:

    •More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York's permit system);
    •Higher fees;
    •More training requirements;
    •A demonstration of "Need" for a permit;
    •More frequent renewal periods;
    •Federally-mandated waiting periods;
    •A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
    •An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable;
    •The list of potential problems is endless.
    Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

    It doesn't stop with just concealed carry. They'll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms -- much less use them for self defense.

    I don't believe the intentions of the bill sponsors are intrinsically bad -- they're just naive and misguided.

    Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.

    Even now, the statists in Congress are trying to adopt a National ID card, complete with biometric data that they've forced the states to conform to their mandated drivers license "standards." The National Association for Gun Rights has been part of a group of liberty-minded organizations that have passed state legislation forbidding cooperation with the federal National ID.

    While many in the institutional gun control lobby will tell you this is a step forward for CCW permit holders, make no mistake, the National CCW Registration Act is a misguided attempt to protect our rights.

    It's like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

    They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections -- state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.

    I'm sorry, but I refuse to entrust my liberty and privacy to a "trust us, they won't do that "approach to dealing with Obama, the gun-grabbers or frankly most politicians of either party in Washington.

    I need you to make some noise, right now!

    Not tomorrow. Not later today. RIGHT NOW.

    A Trojan Horse gun control bill like H.R. 822 is exactly the kind of legislation that will get support on both sides of the aisle in Washington D.C. And remember, the Democrat-controlled Senate has to pass it before it gets to Obama ... so this bill will only get worse.

    That's why you and I have to make noise, now!

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    I am actually in complete agreemwnt with you. This issue should be left to the states. That way one or two bad state laws don't ruin it for everyone. One bad federal law and we're all screwed.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    I thought that the end goal is Constitutional Carry nationwide. Where the 2nd Ammendment is proctected by the 14th Ammendment. And this bill it one step in the long journey. Your fear that it will be turned into something bad. With Democratic majoriites maybe, I have a strong feeling that the Republicans will take the Senate and the White House. Four years of that and we will be several steps past H.R. 822.

  4. #4
    Regular Member oak1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by BROKENSPROKET View Post
    I thought that the end goal is Constitutional Carry nationwide. Where the 2nd Ammendment is proctected by the 14th Ammendment. And this bill it one step in the long journey. Your fear that it will be turned into something bad. With Democratic majoriites maybe, I have a strong feeling that the Republicans will take the Senate and the White House. Four years of that and we will be several steps past H.R. 822.
    You want to gamble your rights away on who wins the next election? That is the most retarded thing I have heard today.
    In God I trust. Everyone else needs to keep your hands where I can see them.

  5. #5
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    349
    Get rid of this bill! It talks of freedom but smacks of federal tyranny!
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE[/COLOR] with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTYhttp://www.QRZ.com/db/KB9QFH TELEPHONE: +1(800)808-KIWI that's +1(800)808-5494 Tollfree. "NewZealander By Birth, American By The Grace Of God." See also http://www.facebook.com/NewZealandAmerican & http://RTR.org/NewZealandAmerican “IN MEMORY OF OUR GOD, OUR RELIGION, AND FREEDOM, AND OUR PEACE, OUR WIVES, AND OUR CHILDREN" (The Title Of LIBERTY)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Somewhere, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,029
    Status in House:

    Currently in judiciary committee. Of 435 house members it needs 218 votes to pass. Currently it has 243 co-sponsors.

  7. #7
    Regular Member BROKENSPROKET's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Trempealeau County
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Nemo View Post
    Status in House:

    Currently in judiciary committee. Of 435 house members it needs 218 votes to pass. Currently it has 243 co-sponsors.
    I would be absolutely shocked if it did not passe the House, I would be equally suprised if it passed the Senate.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Can you please take each of the examples below, and give us the proper cite in the current bill (or amendments to that bill) that provides for these to happen?

    If the issue is that these further restrictions might be added to the bill, then you might have a point, and it would be good to refuse to support it at that point. But, can you please explain what's wrong with the bill in its current form?

    If we take your suggested approach to law making, then you should refuse to support anything, including a Constitutional Carry bill, because that could get amendments to implement the below also.

    I think that a discussion can be held, without all of the scare mongering. I also think there are valid reasons to object to this legislation (I haven't decided whether or not to support it myself.)

    This bill is pretty much a lock for the House. And, it's more likely to pass in the Senate than you might think it is. Refer to this attempt, in 2009, where a similar effort failed in the Senate, 59 to 39 (amendments take 60 votes.)

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8140491&page=1

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    •More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York's permit system);
    •Higher fees;
    •More training requirements;
    •A demonstration of "Need" for a permit;
    •More frequent renewal periods;
    •Federally-mandated waiting periods;
    •A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
    •An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable;
    •The list of potential problems is endless.
    Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Kent County, Michigan
    Posts
    757
    Does the OP have a concealed carry permit? Doesn't that permit embody nearly all the projected horrors?

    Now I ask you, how has concealed carry worked out for (or against) the advancement of the Second Amendment?

    I would perhaps have fought tooth and nail (years ago) against the idea of a 'permit' from my state just to exercise a fundamental right. I still strongly object to the whole concept of 'mother may I' when it comes to our Rights, mind you. But the reality is that Americans are getting their Second Amendment Rights back, bit by bit and the antis are losing the argument. I see Constitutional Carry as an inevitable consequence of suffering through licensed concealed carry. People get their permit, realize that they shouldn't have to jump through regulatory hoops, organize politically, let their elected officials know just how they feel about asking 'permission' and eventually a critical mass of pro-freedom forces results in Constitutional Carry. Arizona wasn't a fluke. New Hampshire, Utah, and many other states are poised to follow.

    The genius of National Reciprocity is that it will force the may-issue (and no-issue) states over to the shall-issue camp and then there is absolutely no turning back from that point forward.

    Bonus is that the antis will argue at the Supreme Court that National Reciprocity violates the 10th Amendment (imagine that!). Many of the conservative justices are pro-States Rights anyway and with the liberal anti-gun justices desperate to overturn National Reciprocity, we just may have a landmark (and sorely needed) 10th Amendment Decision (finally) striking down a Federal law!

    By the time that happens, National Reciprocity will have been the law of the land for several years and the damage to the anti-gun camp will have been done. Amen!

    Win either way!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa, USA
    Posts
    491
    I was following along until I got to this point.

    Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
    I might be able to see some of the other problems you list as happening but I do not see how HR 822 can do anything with constitutional carry. HR 822 requires a state to recognize every other state permits which becomes irrelevant in those states that do not require permits. The federal government might be able to impose conditions on permits that are considered a real and true "permit" under this law but that does not create a permit requirement in a state that does not already have one.


    But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.
    With a supermajority of the House signed on as sponsors I just don't see that happening. Any attempt to twist the intent of the law is very likely to be met with considerable resistance from the sponsors. Even though the next election is more than a year away these people are in campaign mode and gun control legislation is a sure bet to lose their seat.

    As much as I like the idea of this bill I'm torn on what to think about it. There is much good that can come from this but something about it makes me nervous. I agree with those that believe this law cannot pass with the current President and Senate. This is a campaign move to show a good stance on RKBA for the next election. If things go well this law, or something "better" (depending on how you define "better"), is likely to pass next year.

    At this time I'm taking a wait and see stance.

  11. #11
    McX
    Guest
    I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go,


    Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Bad ju-ju!
    Last edited by McX; 09-20-2011 at 08:13 PM.

  12. #12
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    Quote Originally Posted by IA_farmboy View Post
    As much as I like the idea of this bill I'm torn on what to think about it. There is much good that can come from this but something about it makes me nervous. I agree with those that believe this law cannot pass with the current President and Senate.
    IA Farmboy and I have had our differences, but I echo his misgivings about this Bill. On the one hand, depending on the wording, it may be possible for residents of "may issue" states like NY and NJ to carry on a non-resident permit, but the potential for DOJ to make "regulations to reflect the intent of Congress" is a real and present danger that cannot be ignored.

    This Bill is also a political bug-a-boo for the current temporary occupant of the White House. If it passes the Senate, and with a few "Blue Dog Democrats" it can actually pass the Senate, and he vetoes it in an election year, he has pretty much sealed his fate. On the other hand, if he vetoes it and then bows to the advice of Blue Dog Democrats and concedes that he is a 1 term president, and endorses Mrs. Clinton for the White House, he can easily veto it and Mrs. Clinton will pursue her UN Small Arms Treaty aspirations of disarming all citizens of the United States of America (if Americans are stupid enough to elect her - and, well.........). If that happens, our fate as US Citizens protected by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution will be resting in the hands of the US Senate. (Except that any action by the Senate that contravenes or contradicts the US Constitution, as amended, will be up for review by the US Supreme Court.)

    So, in the final analysis, this Bill has great intentions, but comes with great risk.
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  13. #13
    Regular Member jpm84092's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,068
    [QUOTE=Law abider;1611400] I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go QUOTE]

    Of course you meant to say that you carry your wallet concealed everywhere you go. Until a law abiding citizen of Wisconsin is issued a Wisconsin Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon at some point after November 1, 2011, the carry of a concealed weapon in Wisconsin is a felony offense. Since you are a law abiding citizen, as reflected in your screen name, I am sure you meant that you carry your wallet concealed everywhere that you go.
    My cats support the Second Amendment. NRA Life Member, NRA Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, & Personal Protection - NRA Certified Range Safety Officer, Utah BCI Certified Concealed Firearm Permit Instructor.
    "Permission Slips" from Utah, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. _ Verily, thou shalt not fiddle with thine firearm whilst in the bathroom stall, lest thine spouse seek condolences from thine friends.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    [QUOTE=jpm84092;1614169]
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go QUOTE]

    Of course you meant to say that you carry your wallet concealed everywhere you go. Until a law abiding citizen of Wisconsin is issued a Wisconsin Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon at some point after November 1, 2011, the carry of a concealed weapon in Wisconsin is a felony offense. Since you are a law abiding citizen, as reflected in your screen name, I am sure you meant that you carry your wallet concealed everywhere that you go.
    Or the OP decided to claim another's words as his own. That's called plagiarism for those at home. It's definitely frowned upon.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    I did not say that

    No where in my original post do I ever say "I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go" That was McX.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Why don't you review the 10th text line of your post. If you're going to plagiarize, you will increase your credibility if you are familiar with the text you steal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    No where in my original post do I ever say "I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go" That was McX.

  17. #17
    Regular Member HandyHamlet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Terra, Sol
    Posts
    2,779
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    Why don't you review the 10th text line of your post. If you're going to plagiarize, you will increase your credibility if you are familiar with the text you steal.
    "Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
    Abraham Lincoln

    "Some time ago, a bunch of lefties defied the law by dancing at the Jefferson Memorial, resulting in their arrests. Last week, a bunch of them pulled the same stunt and - using patented Lefist techniques - provoked the Park Police into having to use force to arrest them."
    Alexcabbie

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    http://www.rockwallgop.com/internati...re-gun-control

    There is where the op originally came from. Looks like the op is a c&p in its entirely.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show

    If the official description is ALL that the bill does then I wouldn't have an issue with it as it doesn't set up requirements for getting a permit and it specifically states that you have to obey the laws of the state you're in. But of course the devil is in the details and I still need to find the actual text of the bill.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    You are right

    Yes you are right: It was a long e mail and in my cut and paste I omitted the writer. Thanks for the note. I'll find the e mail and put the writer's name McX. Next time I'll double check my cut and pastes.

  21. #21
    Wisconsin Carry, Inc. Shotgun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,668
    [QUOTE=jpm84092;1614169]
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post

    Until a law abiding citizen of Wisconsin is issued a Wisconsin Permit to Carry a Concealed Weapon at some point after November 1, 2011, the carry of a concealed weapon in Wisconsin is a felony offense.
    No it isn't. Never has been.
    Last edited by Shotgun; 09-21-2011 at 04:12 PM.
    A. Gold

    Failure to comply may result in discipline up to and including termination.
    The free man is a warrior. - Nietzsche "Twilight of the Idols"

  22. #22
    Campaign Veteran XD40-OD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Central WI
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    No where in my original post do I ever say "I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go" That was McX.
    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    Yes you are right: It was a long e mail and in my cut and paste I omitted the writer. Thanks for the note. I'll find the e mail and put the writer's name McX. Next time I'll double check my cut and pastes.
    Self owned
    Last edited by XD40-OD; 09-21-2011 at 04:18 PM.
    Poor Obama. All this time, he thought he had been placed in charge of the GovernMINT.

    Boys and girls call 911
    Men and Women call 1911

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ellsworth Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,213

    I found the e mail

    I get e mails from this group from time to time. I usually read it and delete them. But this one I needed your inputs bec I didn't know what to make of his thoughts on this bill. His name is Dudely Brown from this e mail adressudley.Brown@nationalgunrights.org.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Boone County, KY
    Posts
    312
    I posted two comments on another forum. I will will reprint them here (with my permission). Just keep in mind the second comment that I made was about a precedent for protection (exemption) from State Laws by the Feds in the early 1990's.
    __________________________________________________ ________________________________________

    First Comment

    "With a Federal CCW Be careful what you ask for

    We have to be concerned where this all will lead. Lets for a second call it a 'Federal Carry Permit'. With it you could carry open and concealed in all the States. So what if they put in the requirements that you have to have this permit for open carry. In some states, like Kentucky; it is possible to open carry right now without a permit.

    So what if some laws were amended to make this 'permit' the only one that will be recognized and the state issued ones null and void. Lets say it happens. So in theory with this new permit, I would have to have one in order to open carry in KY?

    Keep in mind down the line they could just add more conditions to the carry permit say to suit non pro 2A states like NJ. Maybe a restriction on caliber, it has to be holstered, mandatory gun locks while carrying in certain areas (you could carry, but the gun has to be locked).


    Since this will be a federal permit, I have to assume it will have the same rights and restrictions across the land. I would assume some things that we take for granted now in Pro 2A States now could get eroded with this scheme. There will have to be some accommodations made to satisfy less than Pro 2A States. One size fits all?

    I am all for all people to be to carry and protect themselves in any state. But lets be careful, very careful that the proposed "Federal Carry Permit" just doesn't just end up being a "National Gun License" in disguise. In one fell swoop,once this is in place. The 'powers that be' could just ban open and concealed carry and require all gun owners to get this permit just to keep their firearms. Then later on raise the cost of the permit and have more conditions and restrictions connected to it."

    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

    Second Comment : Precedent

    "There was a precedent, if one can call it that. It did not involve firearms, but it did involve a Federal Agency and States and licensed individuals. Before deleting this, please read on.

    There are laws on the books in some states called 'scanner laws'. Licensed amateur Radio Operators whose mobile radios also received police radio transmissions would be at risk in getting their radios confiscated and fined and possibly face jail time if caught having any radio capable of receiving police radio transmissions.

    A law was passed by the governing agency (The Federal Communications Commission) giving licensed amateur radio operators exemption from the law. PR Docket 91-36
    http://qsl.net/w5htw/FCC_PAGE/fcc_page.html

    This law did not give licensed amateurs the right to buy a scanner for their vehicles or to listen to police calls in states that prohibited it . But it did give them a legal right to have radios in their vehicles that were capable 'out of the box' of receiving police radio transmissions.

    After the federal law was passed a number of states who had these 'scanner laws' on the books added the licensed amateur radio operator exemption to the scanner laws.

    Even though radios and firearms are two very different subjects. There are similarities here.

    Federal Government
    Federal Agency
    License Holders
    Items affected by State Laws
    Items that can be carried on a person or in a vehicle.
    Exemption from State Law by the Federal Government"
    __________________________________________________ ______________________________________

    Comments, Concerns ?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    I think he's a scare mongering nutball, who is coming up with a bunch of hypothetical situations that could happen to any bill at any time before it becomes (or at least is passed by the Congress).

    Like I said earlier, there are some 10th Amendment arguments that can be made against it. I don' t think they're as strong as some others do. But, this guy is just trying to scare people without any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Law abider View Post
    I get e mails from this group from time to time. I usually read it and delete them. But this one I needed your inputs bec I didn't know what to make of his thoughts on this bill. His name is Dudely Brown from this e mail adressudley.Brown@nationalgunrights.org.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •