Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: More concern about HR-822 & a better alternative, HR-2900

  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
    349

    More concern about HR-822 & a better alternative, HR-2900

    More concern about HR-822 & the proper alternative, HR-2900
    I'm posting this email from NAGR because the points mentioned i think are things to really be worried about. SORRY for the exceeding length but i copied from my email account. (Dion)



    H.R. 822 could be taken up for a vote as early as tomorrow morning.

    From the beginning, I have been warning you about H.R. 822 turning into a Trojan Horse.

    Unfortunately, I'm being proven right more quickly than I ever imagined.

    I've been afraid that this bill would be amended to include "reasonable" gun control measures that would, in fact, turn out to be disastrous federally mandated infringements on our rights.

    The response to this was an assurance that, should the bill be amended, it would be pulled by its sponsors.

    Well, I hate to break it to you, but it already has been amended.

    Prior to leaving the Judiciary Committee, H.R. 822 was amended to include the following changes:
    • A "study" to control firearm sales over the internet;
    • Eliminated provisions for states' rights;
    • A "review" in one year -- providing a perfect opportunity for more changes.
    Keep in mind, these changes have been made by a Republican-controlled committee that is part of a Republican-controlled House.

    What happens when it gets to Harry Reid's Senate?

    In addition to the accepted amendments, numerous others have been proposed such as:
    • Inclusion of REAL ID as part of H.R. 822;
    • Banning national carry for anyone under 21 years of age;
    • Anyone labeled as a "terrorist" would be denied carry rights;
    • Requirements for all individuals to provide 24 hour notice to any state he or she would be traveling to.
    I haven't told you the craziest part, yet.

    One amendment proposed would have changed H.R. 822 to allow Washington, D.C. to be included in the list of places one would have reciprocity.

    Guess what?

    Republicans voted it down!

    I guess that D.C. v Heller case didn't mean all that people said it did, huh?

    I need you to call your Congressman right now.

    Tell them that this is not the answer to better gun laws.

    Tell them that this bill will only make things more complicated and, in the end, hurt gun owners.

    Call Rep. Robert Dold at (202) 225-4835.

    This is important.

    Call them as soon as possible, because this could happen tomorrow morning.

    Tell Rep. Robert Dold to vote no on H.R. 822 and to keep the federal government out of your concealed carry laws.

    -- Dudley


    From: Dudley Brown [dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org]
    Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:54 PM
    Subject: Urgent action needed



    Dion,

    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 thegovernment’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
    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 andmake 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.


    Common sense alternative to H.R. 822 (carry reciprocity)
    Gun Owners of America

    House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!


    The House Judiciary Committee will soon be voting on legislation that will guarantee the right of citizens to carry firearms out-of-state. And the vote could come as early as today or tomorrow!

    GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 -- introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) -- and explained the weaknesses in his bill. Many of you have taken action on our alerts and informed your Representative that there is a better approach.

    That approach has been championed by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the author of H.R. 2900 -- or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. The Broun bill has several advantages:

    It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- a benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

    Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit; and
    Finally, the Broun bill does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Passing gun legislation that uses the Commerce Clause for authority could undercut efforts at promoting Firearms Freedom Act legislation throughout the country which specifically declares the Commerce Clause has no authority over the production of intrastate guns.

    We need to continue putting heat on Congress, now that this reciprocity legislation is beginning to move. You’ve already sent your emails, but now it’s time to change things up and send postcards. If the House committee passes the Stearns bill, then it will probably come to the floor of the House some time next month.

    So there is plenty of time to inundate Representatives’ offices with postcards and mail -- urging them to support H.R. 2900 -- or to amend the Stearns bill so that it contains the gun owners’ protections in the Broun bill.

    So, GOA members, please be looking for the latest mailing from GOA headquarters which should begin arriving this week. And please take the enclosed postcard and send it to your Representative. Then, take the extra two postcards and have pro-gun family members and friends send them, as well. That will multiply your efforts by 200%.

    Not receiving GOA’s mailings and postcards?
    Click here and sign up to become a GOA member today.
    http://gunowners.org/store/membership
    Last edited by NewZealandAmerican; 10-21-2011 at 03:20 AM.
    (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)

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    "Requirements for all individuals to provide 24 hour notice to any state he or she would be traveling to."

    Oh, geez. That's 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the whole concept of national reciprocity.

    I'm yanking my support.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Levittown, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    771
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    "Requirements for all individuals to provide 24 hour notice to any state he or she would be traveling to."

    Oh, geez. That's 180 degrees in the opposite direction from the whole concept of national reciprocity.

    I'm yanking my support.

    this was a presented amendment...that failed to pass.
    States don’t have rights. People do.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Like or hate 822, do it on its merits, not on the basis of a fund-raising email from a group that wants a different bill passed.

    That is a laundry-list "fear-mail," designed to increase support for an alternate bill, which likely stands as much chance of having the same fears realized. And, hopefully, gains money and members for Dudley. I discount his missives due to his tactics.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  5. #5
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    It is still a gateway for the government to claim authority they do not have. This bill should be amended to say "No governing body, or subdivision thereof, Federal, State, or local, shall enact or enforce any law, rule, policy, order, or regulation which shall in any way affect, restrict, or infringe the possession, purchase, manufacture, or ownership of any weapon by any citizen of the United States."

    Clear enough?

  6. #6
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    If you want a very good analysis of HR 822 read this: http://cavalierknight.com/no.menu/no...822.kopel.html

    I don't know what interest GOA has in the other bill, but HR 822 is just fine with me....

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Brimstone Baritone View Post
    It is still a gateway for the government to claim authority they do not have. This bill should be amended to say "No governing body, or subdivision thereof, Federal, State, or local, shall enact or enforce any law, rule, policy, order, or regulation which shall in any way affect, restrict, or infringe the possession, purchase, manufacture, or ownership of any weapon by any citizen of the United States."

    Clear enough?
    Or in less words, the Second Amendment.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by hermannr View Post
    If you want a very good analysis of HR 822 read this: http://cavalierknight.com/no.menu/no...822.kopel.html

    I don't know what interest GOA has in the other bill, but HR 822 is just fine with me....
    By his analysis, everything now falls under the 14th amendment, thereby allowing the Feds to regulate/control everything.

    So do you subscribe to this theory? I don't. The states have some autonomy to control what happens in their state. Under this theory, the can do anything, but then the Feds can come in and take control; at future time.

    This isn't a 2A issue; it is a state's ability to govern within their bounds. Why should they have to allow a potentially less trained individual carry in their state; but their own citizens are subject to higher standards? Again, each state should work with the others; they have been doing it and it is progressing; look at 10 years ago, there was very little reciprocity among the states.

    Now explain to me in 5 years, when a more liberal congress and president are in office, what will take place. If this law was in effect now, do you think the libs would have let it alone, before they lost the House? I sincerely doubt it.

    Need the feds to stay out of this one.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    251
    Quote Originally Posted by protias View Post
    Or in less words, the Second Amendment.
    English is a lost art.

    Not too long ago there was some sort of proposal that basically put some redundancy into the 2nd Amendment that this forum more or less took to the cleaners and said it was pointless. I personally wouldn't be opposed to it since we already have a little bit of redundancy in place for the constituents of this country. We have the 14th Amendment but someone felt it was necessary to include the 15th and 19th Amendments since we couldn't figure out that "citizen" applies to everyone born in the US or who has become nationalized regardless of race, previous nationality, or gender.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Longmont, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    39

    Hr-822 no hr-2900

    Even if there was a problem with the bill I would never depend on the DUD, as he seems to always find the things that could scare us and they demand donations (he may say he's not demanding) but the constant scare-mails, sure make it seem that way, and most of the time what he is e-mailing is old news.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290
    No government be it State, Federal, or local, has ANY business WHATSOEVER deciding who may be armed, with what, and in what manner; so long as the armaments being possessed and carried are equal to or less than the armament of a modern light infantryman.

    This includes convicted felons. If a felon is so damned dangerous that he cannot be trusted with the bearing of arms, then he belongs behind bars until such time as he can be.

    Here's a simple excersise anyone - even an anti - will find proves the point.

    In all your transactions with others, assume that the other person is armed. The change in your day-to-day attitude toward your fellow man will be astounding. You will become LOADS more polite.

    More guns = LESS violence. It's proven. The debate, as Algore said, is over.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    By his analysis, everything now falls under the 14th amendment, thereby allowing the Feds to regulate/control everything.

    So do you subscribe to this theory? I don't. The states have some autonomy to control what happens in their state. Under this theory, the can do anything, but then the Feds can come in and take control; at future time.

    This isn't a 2A issue; it is a state's ability to govern within their bounds. Why should they have to allow a potentially less trained individual carry in their state; but their own citizens are subject to higher standards? Again, each state should work with the others; they have been doing it and it is progressing; look at 10 years ago, there was very little reciprocity among the states.

    Now explain to me in 5 years, when a more liberal congress and president are in office, what will take place. If this law was in effect now, do you think the libs would have let it alone, before they lost the House? I sincerely doubt it.

    Need the feds to stay out of this one.
    FML the internet just ate my post. Basically what I said is that this isn't a commerce clause issue and that is the problem with HR822 (it gets its power from the commerce clause). If the feds were to pass a law like this they have the power to do so either under the full faith and credit clause, or in how the 14th amendment section 1 forces all states to honor the BoR regardless of what their state constitution says. Using either the FF&CC or 14->2 method puts a LOT of restrictions on just what the feds could constitutionally do/say and is how something like this should be passed.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    FML the internet just ate my post. Basically what I said is that this isn't a commerce clause issue and that is the problem with HR822 (it gets its power from the commerce clause). If the feds were to pass a law like this they have the power to do so either under the full faith and credit clause, or in how the 14th amendment section 1 forces all states to honor the BoR regardless of what their state constitution says. Using either the FF&CC or 14->2 method puts a LOT of restrictions on just what the feds could constitutionally do/say and is how something like this should be passed.
    No offense, but are we on the same page? It's been a long day and I'm working on a partial cell or two.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    No offense, but are we on the same page? It's been a long day and I'm working on a partial cell or two.
    I would say that to a degree we are on the same page. We both agree that the commerce clause is NOT how something like this should be passed. It sounds to me that you don't think that this is a second amendment issue, to which I would disagree and here's why (note that I'm not saying I'm right, simply this is my interpretation of things). Originally the second amendment only applied to the federal government in restricting what the feds could do. The second amendment did nothing to restrict what the states could do and they were held to their constitutions for these types of matters. But I take section 1 of the 14th amendment to in effect restrict what states can do to a citizen. In short, it prevents the states from infringing upon the citizens in the same way that the feds can't infringe upon a citizen (aka it forces the BoR onto the states regardless of what their state constitution says. It also forces any other constitutionally outlined federal restrictions onto the states but only in regards to dealing with citizens).

    Now the 14th also states that Congress may pass laws to force the states to comply with the amendment. But the thing with using the 14th amendment to apply the 2nd to all the states is this. Going this route is VERY restrictive on just what the feds can do (as it should be). It also means that the feds have to admit that both the right to keep AND bear arms is an individual right. It would actually need to remove all permits as requiring a permit is an infringement on the right. Given just how narrow in scope the feds power would be I don't see them wanting to go this route as it doesn't expand their power. This does not allow Congress to regulate/control everything. It simply allows Congress to constitutionally pass laws that are very specific in regards to what a state CAN'T do to their citizens.

    The second "proper" arguement is to use the full faith and credit clause. This would be a bit "better" in the eyes of the feds as it doesn't force them to really accept the second amendment as an individual right or force them to try and remove permits as an infringement on a right. Instead it would simply make ALL states (including IL) have to honor all other states permits (which would also mean they would have to honor non-resident permits from places like UT). But there's still some issues with going about it this way (for the feds). First is that it doesn't expand any of their powers. And because it is working towards 3am I have lost my train of thought and can't finish the other issues the feds would have with this, but I had thought of others.

    So I feel that the feds have gone the commerce clause route because it has become the "easiest" route and it expands their power. But I 100% agree with you that it opens the door to further abuses by either party down the road. And as I'm falling asleep here I'm off to bed.

  15. #15
    Regular Member xmanhockey7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Portage, MI
    Posts
    1,490
    Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything...
    This could happen with literally any legislation. Even 2900
    "No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

    ...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
    - Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

    Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
    - Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    HR822 may very well not be all it's cracked up to be, however, the blatantly misleading fear-mongering in the OP is reason enough to skip this thread.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Regardless of the merits or demerits of hr822 one thing that has come out of this is that I now feel that my trust in Dudley Brown of the NAGR is about the same as my trust in the Brady Bunch. Like the old story of trying to convince me that it's raining.

Posting Permissions

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