jskp229
Regular Member
As we were discussing yesterday at the meet & greet lunch, H.R. 822 is not all the NRA is out to make it. There are multiple risks once this establishes the precedent. If you look below in one of the articles from the Stephen P. Wenger mailing, there is a reference to a past attempt to impact the conditions of a permit & make the country conform to the may issue model used in CA. Note the comments in (…) are those of Stephen in his distribution. My thoughts are in bold.
The first article references H.R. 2900 that is supported by GOA. I have a little more confidence in their insight into protecting our rights than the NRA, but I’m still not convinced that this may not have similar risks. At this point not being a lawyer, I just don’t know. Thoughts?
<SoapBox> Think about the risks & tell your congress critter how & where you want your freedoms protected. </SoapBox>
(Not quite as personally verbose as M-T, but I’m competing for inches with cut & paste…
Given the volume of this post, please don't quote as a whole in your response - it will be too unmanageable.)
Also, you may want to check out Stephen's site. You may not agree with everything he says, but he has been around a long time & has some interesting insights. http://www.spw-duf.info/
Thanks,
JSK
------------------------------
From GOA: Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well. Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line. And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal… Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life – without needing a permit from the government… Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution… (Okay, unlike NRA’s HR 822, GOA’s HR 2900 recognizes constitutional carry and cites a different Constitutional basis – which is not how driver licenses are recognized from state to state. Can anyone convince that HR 2900 does not also allow the federal camel to put its nose under the tent of carrying firearms outside the home?)
http://gunowners.org/a09222011.htm
---------
Existing OCDO discussions on H.R. 822:
http://tinyurl.com/65sqqtf
http://tinyurl.com/655pqt7
-----------
Some additional discussion & articles on H.R. 822 excerpted from the mailings sent from Stephen P. Wenger. I think the concern listed in the articles & those expressed by Stephen are valid concerns over the risks.
-------------
Camel’s Nose, Camel’s Toe?: There’s an old Arab fable called “The Camel’s Toe.” An Arab sits snugly in his tent during a sand storm, leaving his camel outside in the gritty blast. The camel pleads that the driving sand is hurting its sore toe, so could it please stick just its toe inside the tent. The Arab agrees – It’s just a toe, after all. Then the camel complains that its entire foot is in pain: couldn’t it just place its whole foot inside the tent. Again, the Arab agrees. Then it’s the ankle, the knee, the whole leg, then the shoulder. Eventually the camel is fully inside the tent and the Arab is stuck out in the howling sand storm. H.R. 822 is a camel’s toe… Certainly, if H.R. 822 becomes law, it will benefit CC-permit holders… for a while. But once you allow the federal camel to stick that toe in your tent, get ready for it to inch further. That bill creep might even start before it gets passed, as gun-control advocates begin to attach amendments defining exactly what a CC permit should be – or regulating it might be another way to word it…
http://www.mesquitelocalnews.com/viewnews.php?newsid=8410&id=21
*** CA May issue reference ***
Once Again: This Labor Day weekend, many families will pack up the car for one last road trip to the beach, lake or park before summer ends. Unfortunately, many of them will have to check their right to self-defense at the state border. Thankfully, there is legislation making its way through Congress that would fix this. The bill is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) and it would allow any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to exercise their right to carry a firearm in any other state that affords that right to its own residents. The bill was introduced by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC) and it currently has 242 co-sponsors and the full backing of the National Rifle Association. By any benchmark, H.R. 822 has overwhelming bipartisan support… (Because of the nearly daily growth in the list, I repeat my objection to letting the feds get involved in this issue. Doing so will only make it easier for some future Congress to amend the law, establishing federal standards for permit issuance [see http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/012111.cfm]. As with the 55 mph speed limit, states that don’t comply will be threatened with the loss of law-enforcement-assistance funds. NRA is skating on very thin ice that could result in the rest of the nation having California-style standards for carrying firearms outside the home.)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/30/your-right-to-self-defense-shouldnt-end-at-state-borders/
-----------
An example on how local laws can still cause conflict even with H.R. 822.
------------
…Despite the overwhelming evidence that laws limiting the ability of average citizens to purchase or possess firearms do little, if anything, to prevent violence, Bloomberg said, “There are just too many guns on the streets and we have to do something about it.” Bloomberg invariably couples these vague but loud demands with calls for the federal government to “step up” action. Within the past three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down gun bans previously in effect in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Illinois. Notwithstanding these legal victories, sufficient wiggle room remains for anti-gunners like Bloomberg to continue to circumvent and thwart the right of the people to possess firearms for self-defense… (Barr goes on to argue in support of Trojan-horse HR 822, ignoring a fact that should have been noted by list members a few days ago – even if it becomes law, according to New York statue, it would not appear to apply to the five boroughs of New York City.)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/16/bob-barr-bloomberg-again-whining-for-more-gun-control/
------
The first article references H.R. 2900 that is supported by GOA. I have a little more confidence in their insight into protecting our rights than the NRA, but I’m still not convinced that this may not have similar risks. At this point not being a lawyer, I just don’t know. Thoughts?
<SoapBox> Think about the risks & tell your congress critter how & where you want your freedoms protected. </SoapBox>
(Not quite as personally verbose as M-T, but I’m competing for inches with cut & paste…
Given the volume of this post, please don't quote as a whole in your response - it will be too unmanageable.)Also, you may want to check out Stephen's site. You may not agree with everything he says, but he has been around a long time & has some interesting insights. http://www.spw-duf.info/
Thanks,
JSK
------------------------------
From GOA: Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well. Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line. And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal… Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life – without needing a permit from the government… Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution… (Okay, unlike NRA’s HR 822, GOA’s HR 2900 recognizes constitutional carry and cites a different Constitutional basis – which is not how driver licenses are recognized from state to state. Can anyone convince that HR 2900 does not also allow the federal camel to put its nose under the tent of carrying firearms outside the home?)
http://gunowners.org/a09222011.htm
---------
Existing OCDO discussions on H.R. 822:
http://tinyurl.com/65sqqtf
http://tinyurl.com/655pqt7
-----------
Some additional discussion & articles on H.R. 822 excerpted from the mailings sent from Stephen P. Wenger. I think the concern listed in the articles & those expressed by Stephen are valid concerns over the risks.
-------------
Camel’s Nose, Camel’s Toe?: There’s an old Arab fable called “The Camel’s Toe.” An Arab sits snugly in his tent during a sand storm, leaving his camel outside in the gritty blast. The camel pleads that the driving sand is hurting its sore toe, so could it please stick just its toe inside the tent. The Arab agrees – It’s just a toe, after all. Then the camel complains that its entire foot is in pain: couldn’t it just place its whole foot inside the tent. Again, the Arab agrees. Then it’s the ankle, the knee, the whole leg, then the shoulder. Eventually the camel is fully inside the tent and the Arab is stuck out in the howling sand storm. H.R. 822 is a camel’s toe… Certainly, if H.R. 822 becomes law, it will benefit CC-permit holders… for a while. But once you allow the federal camel to stick that toe in your tent, get ready for it to inch further. That bill creep might even start before it gets passed, as gun-control advocates begin to attach amendments defining exactly what a CC permit should be – or regulating it might be another way to word it…
http://www.mesquitelocalnews.com/viewnews.php?newsid=8410&id=21
*** CA May issue reference ***
Once Again: This Labor Day weekend, many families will pack up the car for one last road trip to the beach, lake or park before summer ends. Unfortunately, many of them will have to check their right to self-defense at the state border. Thankfully, there is legislation making its way through Congress that would fix this. The bill is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) and it would allow any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to exercise their right to carry a firearm in any other state that affords that right to its own residents. The bill was introduced by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC) and it currently has 242 co-sponsors and the full backing of the National Rifle Association. By any benchmark, H.R. 822 has overwhelming bipartisan support… (Because of the nearly daily growth in the list, I repeat my objection to letting the feds get involved in this issue. Doing so will only make it easier for some future Congress to amend the law, establishing federal standards for permit issuance [see http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/012111.cfm]. As with the 55 mph speed limit, states that don’t comply will be threatened with the loss of law-enforcement-assistance funds. NRA is skating on very thin ice that could result in the rest of the nation having California-style standards for carrying firearms outside the home.)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/30/your-right-to-self-defense-shouldnt-end-at-state-borders/
-----------
An example on how local laws can still cause conflict even with H.R. 822.
------------
…Despite the overwhelming evidence that laws limiting the ability of average citizens to purchase or possess firearms do little, if anything, to prevent violence, Bloomberg said, “There are just too many guns on the streets and we have to do something about it.” Bloomberg invariably couples these vague but loud demands with calls for the federal government to “step up” action. Within the past three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down gun bans previously in effect in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Illinois. Notwithstanding these legal victories, sufficient wiggle room remains for anti-gunners like Bloomberg to continue to circumvent and thwart the right of the people to possess firearms for self-defense… (Barr goes on to argue in support of Trojan-horse HR 822, ignoring a fact that should have been noted by list members a few days ago – even if it becomes law, according to New York statue, it would not appear to apply to the five boroughs of New York City.)
http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/16/bob-barr-bloomberg-again-whining-for-more-gun-control/
------
Last edited:
