• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

HR 822 discussion-House rules committee.Reciprocity.

T1mH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
42
Location
West Michigan
Isn't Loise Slaughter a peach? She has zero evidence to back up her claims that concealed weapons increase crime yet she sticks to it. How can anyone give any credibility to anything she says?

How come all the anti's are talking generality's or speculation on what could happen. Nothing based on facts. They challenge the results of every study that has been done yet they have no study's to back up any of their claims.

Alcee Hastings is claiming this bill won't require people to know the laws of the states they travel to. That is a flat out lie. He did eventually get called out on that. He is also saying this bill is going to allow a gun trafficker to cross state lines with a car load of guns. How does this bill allow that?


There is speculation that you can mail order a CPL, no examples of it, no proof of it just rumors of it's existence. How hard would that be to prove if it were true? Can you mail order a CPL today? Now this guy is saying that you may not be able to do it today but what happens if a state decides to not require your presence to get an out of state permit. You can play the what if game all day long. What if a state started issuing out of state driver's licenses thru the mail or internet?

Bobby Scott- "The evidence I've seen shows that if you have a gun you are more likely to kill somebody that's innocent than somebody that's preventing a crime." Where is this research? What study was this? Wouldn't this be easy to back up? Then he says- "Like I said the evidence I've seen shows that the more handguns that you have the more people including innocent people will die." This was then refuted by acknowledging that this fact applies to illegal guns, not to legal guns that this bill addresses.

The vote was interesting, I hope this thing makes it through. Those opposing seem to be opposing more on principle and general anti-gun sentiments than legitimate issues with the bill.
 
Last edited:

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
Isn't Loise Slaughter a peach? She has zero evidence to back up her claims that concealed weapons increase crime yet she sticks to it. She brings up some unrelated highly publicized shooting that she does not claim were done with legally acquired or legally concealed guns. How can anyone give any credibility to anything she says?

How come all the anti's are talking generality's or speculation on what could happen. Nothing based on facts. They challenge the results of every study that has been done yet they have no study's to back up any of their claims.

Alcee Hastings is claiming this bill won't require people to know the laws of the states they travel to. That is a flat out lie. He did eventually get called out on that. He is also saying this bill is going to allow a gun trafficker to cross state lines with a car load of guns. How does this bill allow that?


There is speculation that you can mail order a CPL, no examples of it, no proof of it just rumors of it's existence. How hard would that be to prove if it were true? Can you mail order a CPL today? Now this guy is saying that you may not be able to do it today but what happens if a state decides to not require your presence to get an out of state permit. You can play the what if game all day long. What if a state started issuing out of state driver's licenses thru the mail or internet?

Bobby Scott- "The evidence I've seen shows that if you have a gun you are more likely to kill somebody that's innocent than somebody that's preventing a crime." Where is this research? What study was this? Wouldn't this be easy to back up? Then he says- "Like I said the evidence I've seen shows that the more handguns that you have the more people including innocent people will die." This was then refuted by acknowledging that this fact applies to illegal guns, not to legal guns that this bill addresses.

The vote was interesting, I hope this thing makes it through. Those opposing seem to be opposing more on principle and general anti-gun sentiments than legitimate issues with the bill.
They did the same with the Fast & Furious hearings.No questions,just Anti-gun rants,No Facts,EVER! Total A-Holes as ALWAYS!
 

Haman J.T.

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
1,245
Location
, ,
They voted on the rule to proceed today on C-Span.Same Pro-gun FACTS,same Anti-gun lies argued.10am tommorrow they will debate on C-Span.It's the first time I've seen a pro-gun bill argued.I didn't have C-Span back in 94' when they were arguing over the Brady Bill with a Dem majority in the congress and the whitehouse.But I did write a letter.I think Obama might pass it because his ass is on fire and he needs votes!IMHO!
 

detroit_fan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
Monroe, Michigan, USA
They voted on the rule to proceed today on C-Span.Same Pro-gun FACTS,same Anti-gun lies argued.10am tommorrow they will debate on C-Span.It's the first time I've seen a pro-gun bill argued.I didn't have C-Span back in 94' when they were arguing over the Brady Bill with a Dem majority in the congress and the whitehouse.But I did write a letter.I think Obama might pass it because his ass is on fire and he needs votes!IMHO!

no way he signs it, he will veto it.
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
There is speculation that you can mail order a CPL, no examples of it, no proof of it just rumors of it's existence. How hard would that be to prove if it were true? Can you mail order a CPL today? Now this guy is saying that you may not be able to do it today but what happens if a state decides to not require your presence to get an out of state permit. You can play the what if game all day long. What if a state started issuing out of state driver's licenses thru the mail or internet?

I am not quite following you here on getting permits through the mail. I got my NH one through the mail. In fact I have never been to NH and got it just so I could carry in GA. I think that the majority of both FL and UT permits are issued through the mail and I know that is the only way you can get one in SC. So I am not exactly following you on this. I will admit that you are supposed to receive personal training for the SC, FL and UT permits but other than the little paper that says you were trained they have no proof. For the NH I just had to send a photo copy of my permit along with a copy of my DL and a check for $20 I think it was.
 

T1mH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
42
Location
West Michigan
I am not quite following you here on getting permits through the mail. I got my NH one through the mail. In fact I have never been to NH and got it just so I could carry in GA. I think that the majority of both FL and UT permits are issued through the mail and I know that is the only way you can get one in SC. So I am not exactly following you on this. I will admit that you are supposed to receive personal training for the SC, FL and UT permits but other than the little paper that says you were trained they have no proof. For the NH I just had to send a photo copy of my permit along with a copy of my DL and a check for $20 I think it was.
Well the anti guy said he didn't know that you couldn't and the pro guy said he wasn't aware of any state that you could mail order them.

What about finger prints? Are those not required?
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Next, it's on to the Senate!:dude:

I wish this bill took effect now! I go to Ohio so much and don't have a recognized permit there I'd be so nice to be able to carry when I go. Yeah it's unlicensed OC but it's too much of a hassle without a permit.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
The 2nd amendment already clearly and expressly grants "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"bear arms" = have in your possession. This goes for whether the arms are concealed or not. Period.

Any law requiring a CCW permit is simply and factly unconstitutional. Peirod.

I agree we should not need a permit to exercise a right, but it has lead to millions of people being able to legally carry and states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Arizona to no long require a permit to carry concealed.


The Federal Gov't putting their nose into the whole CCW pot is BAD. Pure and simple.

The only thing that's gonna gome of HR822 is that all states will be forced to adopt the state of Illinois' laws, which is the weakest link of "gun laws" in the entire nation. The weakest link is what breaks everyone else.
H.R. 822 will not give them the right to force states to be like Illinois. They could TRY to pass legislation like that without HR 822.
 

xmanhockey7

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
1,195
Lawsuits will fly far and wide about how person A in state A (the state requiring the most regulations to get a CC) is required to do X, Y, and Z to get a CC, but person B in state B (the least regulated state) only has to do T.

The lawsuits will fly at the federal level claiming state A is violating 2A with so many regulations.
Federal law makers will then begin passing more amendments to the Reciprocity law to try and "even the playing field" across all states as to what is and/or is not required to get a CC.
They could try to make federal requirement regardless of whether or not we have national reciprocity. But this is a good point.

2A says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Bear ~ a transitive verb , or ,

to hold and take along; carry; transport
to hold in the mind: to bear a secret
to possess as a part, characteristic, attribute, etc.; have or show: the letter bore his signature
to give birth to: the passive past participle in this sense is born when by does not follow
to bring forth; produce or yield: fruit-bearing trees, coal-bearing strata
to support or hold up; sustain

Infringed ~ past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
to actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

This argument, while true, only supports HR 822 because it expands your right to legally carry across state lines.
 

T1mH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
42
Location
West Michigan
How did we get the gun control we have today? One law at a time.

How do we get rid of the gun control we have today? One law at a time.

I guess I failed social studies. Is the constitution not a federal government document? Shouldn't there be federal laws enforcing it? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm being serious. I guess I should take a government class instead of my next pistol class.

We have laws today restricting firearms, why wouldn't we want to support a law that lessons those restrictions?

States rights, personal property rights, citizens rights, you do all understand that it isn't possible to protect all of those simultaneously, right? Sometimes they are going to conflict.
 
Top