URGENT ALERT: House Vote Coming Soon on CCW Reciprocity Bill

NewZealandAmerican · Nov 15, 2011

Even though the NRA assures 100 % that we have nothing to fear about HR-822, I think there are real concerns to be addressed and fixed.

http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 (the bill coming to the floor tomorrow) and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.

And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.

ACTION: Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Lthrnck · Nov 15, 2011

Vote..

How about voting Yes...!!! and leave this issue up to each person to carry or not?

It does say "We the People" in one of those old documents.

Brass Magnet · Nov 15, 2011

If I'm not mistaken the "fix" is that HR2900 uses the 2A as it's constitutional authority instead of the commerce clause like HR822. This I think I could support. I cannot support the current language of HR822.

Brass Magnet · Nov 15, 2011

OC for ME said:
I am a bit dim at times, and continue to be amazed at the efforts to enact legislation that 'reinforces' a constitutional right. It seems to me that folks tend to advocate for more legislation to 'expand' our 2A right first vs. advocating the elimination of existing unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our 2A right.

First the 2A....then, a law that restricts the 2A....then, a law to counter the law that restricts the 2A is needed....then, a law to counter the law that countered the law that restricts the 2A is needed....

My simple thinking. The 2A....done.

I agree 100%. I believe that HR822 is definitely bad mojo.

The only problem I have with HR2900 is in my fantasy world were the government has no power to infringe upon the 2A. Then, a bill like this would be like saying the government has power that it doesn't. Kind of like how SCOTUS grabbed power back in the day. I wish I could remember the case. I'll look for it. It had something to do with an official being appointed and a new president being elected that didn't like that official. He asked the court to rule and the court ruled in a sneaky way that gave them more power than they were understood to have at the time.

Anyway, In our real world though, HR2900 is seemingly a better alternative to what we've actually got.

CDMAGS · Nov 15, 2011

OC for ME said:
I am a bit dim at times, and continue to be amazed at the efforts to enact legislation that 'reinforces' a constitutional right. It seems to me that folks tend to advocate for more legislation to 'expand' our 2A right first vs. advocating the elimination of existing unconstitutional laws that infringe upon our 2A right.

First the 2A....then, a law that restricts the 2A....then, a law to counter the law that restricts the 2A is needed....then, a law to counter the law that countered the law that restricts the 2A is needed....

My simple thinking. The 2A....done.

+1
Perfectly said!

Brimstone Baritone · Nov 15, 2011

@Brass Magnet: You're thinking of Marbury v. Madison which, from what I have been able to tell, was a poorly written decision designed to usurp power that they didn't otherwise have. Basically, a ruling looking for a case to apply to.

Brass Magnet · Nov 15, 2011

Brimstone Baritone said:
@Brass Magnet: You're thinking of Marbury v. Madison which, from what I have been able to tell, was a poorly written decision designed to usurp power that they didn't otherwise have. Basically, a ruling looking for a case to apply to.

That's the one! Thanks! If someone reads that case my previous post will almost make sense! :lol:

At the time, Jefferson disagreed with Marshall's reasoning in this case, saying that if this view of judicial power became accepted, it would be "placing us under the despotism of an oligarchy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#cite_note-presidential_leadership-32

Hmm...Jefferson/Nostradamus?

Redbaron007 · Nov 15, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
I agree 100%. I believe that HR822 is definitely bad mojo.

The only problem I have with HR2900 is in my fantasy world were the government has no power to infringe upon the 2A. Then, a bill like this would be like saying the government has power that it doesn't. Kind of like how SCOTUS grabbed power back in the day. I wish I could remember the case. I'll look for it. It had something to do with an official being appointed and a new president being elected that didn't like that official. He asked the court to rule and the court ruled in a sneaky way that gave them more power than they were understood to have at the time.

Anyway, In our real world though, HR2900 is seemingly a better alternative to what we've actually got.

I concur with your thoughts. I don't want to see HB822 or HB2900, but if I had to choose, I could possible handle HB2900.

MilProGuy · Nov 15, 2011

NewZealandAmerican said:
Even though the NRA assures 100 % that we have nothing to fear about HR-822, I think there are real concerns to be addressed and fixed.

http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 (the bill coming to the floor tomorrow) and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.

And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.

ACTION: Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Thanks very much for bringing this matter to our attention and for providing the links.

RetiredOC · Nov 15, 2011

MilProGuy said:
Thanks very much for bringing this matter to our attention and for providing the links.

No MilProGuy, thank you.

Redbaron007 · Nov 15, 2011

Well, it looks like it passed, but still has a couple of procedures to overcome. Here is the link. It is H. Res 463. Click on Roll no. 842 for a list of those who voted for it and against it. It happened late this afternoon.

MilProGuy · Nov 15, 2011

Schlitz said:
No MilProGuy, thank you.

Bored, my friend?

Brass Magnet · Nov 15, 2011

Redbaron007 said:
Well, it looks like it passed, but still has a couple of procedures to overcome. Here is the link. It is H. Res 463. Click on Roll no. 842 for a list of those who voted for it and against it. It happened late this afternoon.

Hmmm... looks like Ron Paul supported it for consideration. Kind of surprising due to the 10A implications but I'll have to see what he does if it's actually brought up for a vote.

RetiredOC · Nov 15, 2011

MilProGuy said:
Bored, my friend?

No, I just get a good laugh out of half of your posts. Most of the time you post here it is something along the lines of:

"Thank you for posting on an internet forum."

It doesn't really add anything productive, funny, or interesting in any way possible to the conversation, however it is a signature mark of yours and OCDO wouldn't be the same with out it. So when I see these posts by you, sometimes I need to say "Thank you" to YOU, MilProGuy...Thank you for being - you.

This is how I envisioned us having this little dialogue...

MilProGuy · Nov 15, 2011

MilProGuy walking away into the night...shaking his head in disbelief and muttering to himself.

ken243 · Nov 16, 2011

It passed!

It passed. However, if you look at the amendments to this bill they pretty much negate the entire bill... hope they don't pass.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-CA): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

JimMullinsWVCDL · Nov 16, 2011

Those amendments have not yet been voted upon by the House and all of them will likely be rejected by overwhelming margins.

Redbaron007 · Nov 16, 2011

ken243 said:
It passed. However, if you look at the amendments to this bill they pretty much negate the entire bill... After reading the amendments I value this bill a little less than that of my bathroom tissue. The 2A rights took one step forward and 2 steps back today folks.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-CA): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

JimMullinsWVCDL said:
Those amendments have not yet been voted upon by the House and all of them will likely be rejected by overwhelming margins.

It looks like they have debated 8 0f the 10 Amendments. From what I see, Amendment #4 makes me nervous, looks like it creates a national database of CCW permit holders. Here is the link for all 10 of the Amendments. Here is the link to follow the process in the House today.

Since it hasn't been completely passed, these could change. Interesting.

ken243 · Nov 16, 2011

My apologies. I thought those amedments already passed. :uhoh:

None have passed thus far. Good news so far. Thanks for pointing that out...

RetiredOC · Nov 16, 2011

ken243 said:
It passed. However, if you look at the amendments to this bill they pretty much negate the entire bill... hope they don't pass.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-CA): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Wouldn't this amendment alone pretty much make this bill pointless?

URGENT ALERT: House Vote Coming Soon on CCW Reciprocity Bill

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

State Researcher

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran