Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: HR 822 Not such a good idea.

  1. #1
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    320

    HR 822 Not such a good idea.

    http://www.nationalgunrights.org/urgent-action-needed/


    ← Silenced by the feds

    Urgent action needed

    Posted on September 29, 2011 by NAGR Staff
    Last week I told you 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.
    I was 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.
    Can I count on you to take action RIGHT NOW? Rep. Lamar Smith is the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee that will hear H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act.
    I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you are opposed to federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
    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.
    That doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”
    Gun owners have enough trouble with Republican-run Executive branches implementing the law improperly. Does anyone really think the Obama Administration is going to treat gun owners fairly?
    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.
    I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
    I haven’t even mentioned that 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 which have passed state legislation forbidding cooperation with a National ID card.
    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!
    Here’s what you can do to help
    1. I need you to call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and you are opposed to federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
    2. Once you’ve called Chairman Smith, please consider chipping in $15 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight the anti-gunners in Washington.
    It’s imperative that we stop H.R. 822 — the National CCW Registration Act — before it gathers steam and support.
    Liberal Republicans and so-called “conservative” Democrats are looking for an easy “pro-gun” vote to give them cover before the next election.
    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!
    Please call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the federal government’s hands off the state-run CCW permit system.
    Thank you for joining me in this important fight against the National CCW Registration Act.
    For Freedom,

    Dudley Brown
    Executive Director
    P.S. Please call House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith at (202)225-4236 and make clear that you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit. Tell him you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.
    Once you’ve called Chairman Smith, please consider chipping in $15 or $20 to help the National Association for Gun Rights continue to fight the anti-gunners in Washington.


    This entry was posted in Act Now, News and tagged H.R. 822. Bookmark the permalink.

    ← Silenced by the feds
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTY http://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)

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    After reading that NAGR is against the law I find myself re-evaluating my opposition to it. That guy is a scam and huckster.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  3. #3
    Regular Member NewZealandAmerican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Greater Salt Lake City Metro area far south suburb of Provo in UTAH
    Posts
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    After reading that NAGR is against the law I find myself re-evaluating my opposition to it. That guy is a scam and huckster.
    Hey do you have some more info on NAGR? I've only known of them this year. If they really are scammers, please fill me in a bit more, thanks.
    (Dion Wood). MY FREEDOM PAGE with valuable links to ALTERNATIVE MEDIA, Internet Radio shows and other sites to restore our FREEDOM & LIBERTY http://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)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    That guy is a scam and huckster.
    Care to elaborate?
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  5. #5
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Daylen View Post
    After reading that NAGR is against the law I find myself re-evaluating my opposition to it. That guy is a scam and huckster.


    A little help with the facts; opinion is great, but with this attack, a little bit more info would be good........help in credibility, too.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    It is one dude. He is not a lobbyist, philanthropist or lawyer that sues the government. Yet I usually see plenty of crap coming from him claiming to be an organization that does something besides spew crap. He seems to be trying to send out enough junk email in the hopes of getting people to pay him. He has not DONE anything to help gun right causes other than emails of this sort and others that ask for money. People that just want to get their opinion out do things like, be an Examiner, not what I've seen come from this guy. Do you guys really trust something before checking it out; or a guy who represents himself as an organization, which is really just him? How about one that asks for money yet does nothing more than a not very good columnist?
    Last edited by Daylen; 10-03-2011 at 07:50 PM.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10

    We need a roadmap to constitutional carry!

    Under our current legal system, the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The power of the Federal Government to disinfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be challenged in SCOTUS; but, until the ability to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disinfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disinfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.
    The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
    Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people and if anu or all of those criteria are even applicable. If, as now, those criteria are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.
    Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversly identifying those people that have NOT been disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont's, whereby each and every time a person's ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disinfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been neutralized. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people's 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facia assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Ferderal Government level necessary or even permissable?” If, as now, those criteria and/or restrictions are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteriaand/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.
    Once a person has been certified as NOT being disinfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disinfranchised. A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person's ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples' rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.
    In summary, until all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits. Our ultimate goal remains, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum or eliminate them. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, can we get to Constitutional Carry.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor View Post
    Under our current legal system, the Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The power of the Federal Government to disinfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be challenged in SCOTUS; but, until the ability to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disinfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disinfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.
    The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
    o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
    o Fugitives from justice.
    o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
    o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
    o Illegal aliens.
    o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
    o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
    o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
    o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
    o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
    Those criteria must be reviewed, by the voters, Congress, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people and if anu or all of those criteria are even applicable. If, as now, those criteria are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria through legislation and/or the courts.
    Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversly identifying those people that have NOT been disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont's, whereby each and every time a person's ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disinfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been neutralized. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disinfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people's 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, and SCOTUS to insure that they are the absolute minimum criteria required to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facia assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Ferderal Government level necessary or even permissable?” If, as now, those criteria and/or restrictions are too broad or even not relevant, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteriaand/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.
    Once a person has been certified as NOT being disinfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disinfranchised. A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person's ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples' rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.
    In summary, until all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits. Our ultimate goal remains, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum or eliminate them. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, can we get to Constitutional Carry.


    You could have just provided a link to this instead of copying and paste. I'll read it once my eyes come back together.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10

    RE: Link

    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post


    You could have just provided a link to this instead of copying and paste. I'll read it once my eyes come back together.
    Sorry, I don't have a link - my original words. Inquisitor

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    10

    Against the Mayors and FOR H.R. 822

    I think the anti-gun establishment is very concerned that this Bill will finally pass both the House and Senate. I am seeing posts on a very large number of websites and forums suggesting that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse (or a Camol's Toe). Surprisingly these posts all have unique similarities and they all have the same false and misleading statements. If you read them carefully, you will see that they all come from the same source. That source seems to be “The National Association for Gun Rights” (just read their postings that end with “send money”), which has been called a scam online but now appears to also be a shill for the anti-gun groups. Probably NY Mayor Blunderbuss and his “Mayors Illegally Against Guns”. With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I believe that these Trojan Horse postings are a false flag blitz by the anti-gun groups as a ploy to get people to lobby against H.R. 822. Don't let them fool you! For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor View Post
    I think the anti-gun establishment is very concerned that this Bill will finally pass both the House and Senate. I am seeing posts on a very large number of websites and forums suggesting that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse (or a Camol's Toe). Surprisingly these posts all have unique similarities and they all have the same false and misleading statements. If you read them carefully, you will see that they all come from the same source. That source seems to be “The National Association for Gun Rights” (just read their postings that end with “send money”), which has been called a scam online but now appears to also be a shill for the anti-gun groups. Probably NY Mayor Blunderbuss and his “Mayors Illegally Against Guns”. With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I believe that these Trojan Horse postings are a false flag blitz by the anti-gun groups as a ploy to get people to lobby against H.R. 822. Don't let them fool you! For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.
    Many folks are very concerned about the Feds jumping in. Why would I want to put the fate of CCW in the hands of 50 Senators, when the numbers are in your favor with each state? The 50 can make changes nationwide, good or bad, but each state has to be somewhat accountable to the patrons...they have a tendency to listen to them; while the feds may or may not listen. The NRA talking points do nothing to ease concerns.

    The NRA ask for $$ everytime I get an email from them. I guess they are in the same league. BTW, I don't know much about NAGR.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor View Post
    Sorry, I don't have a link - my original words. Inquisitor
    Next time would you mind having some better formatting.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Inquisitor View Post
    I think the anti-gun establishment is very concerned that this Bill will finally pass both the House and Senate. I am seeing posts on a very large number of websites and forums suggesting that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse (or a Camol's Toe). Surprisingly these posts all have unique similarities and they all have the same false and misleading statements. If you read them carefully, you will see that they all come from the same source. That source seems to be “The National Association for Gun Rights” (just read their postings that end with “send money”), which has been called a scam online but now appears to also be a shill for the anti-gun groups. Probably NY Mayor Blunderbuss and his “Mayors Illegally Against Guns”. With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I believe that these Trojan Horse postings are a false flag blitz by the anti-gun groups as a ploy to get people to lobby against H.R. 822. Don't let them fool you! For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.
    Many of those who oppose HR822 are not with the loony mayors for criminal protection, are not associated with the nagging NAGR. Personally I do not want the feds adding any more laws until some problem laws are removed. Also, this bill could be poison to unlicensed carry if the GFSZ law is not repealed first.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

Posting Permissions

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