Bill 822

If you can't sleep tonight see
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302654-3
and couple clips before and after about states and your CCP
Or may you want too see just how your Gov't works (or doesn't work)

The bill is going nowhere IMO

I know there are a lot of pros and cons to the bill, but I personally hope it passes.

Thanks for the link.

pat said:

If you can't sleep tonight see
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/302654-3
and couple clips before and after about states and your CCP
Or may you want too see just how your Gov't works (or doesn't work)

The bill is going nowhere IMO

Click to expand...

Bingo. The bill is going nowhere. The Senate will destroy it. I don't like the federal government getting involved in state issues so I will be happy if it doesn't pass.

MilProGuy said:

I know there are a lot of pros and cons to the bill, but I personally hope it passes.

Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

I hope the bill passes and becomes law as well.

The concept of not supporting a bill that will in essence provide for firearms possession across most state borders except Illinois and Washington DC is like saying "I want it all or nothing" or "To cut off ones nose to spite his face".

I see the issue of moving The Right to Keep and Bears ahead as a battle and will be a battle through out our lives and those of our children and I look at this as well as being the spoils or war and to realize that a partial win is a reality but not full defeat.

Iooops - correction

It appears I was in error about HR 822 passing the HOUSE Tuesday.

That now appears to have been a procedural vote.

I am trying to get clarification.

My most humble and sincere apologies for the error. I deeply regret it

"Not a single Republican voted against the measure."



God bless them, one and all!

What the hell is with the Vermont & Arizona reps who voted against it??

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-842
Tracking the vote....

Rep Slaughter. An amendment to the Constitution for me to come home from work without fear of being shot?!?!?!

I think Dave jumped the gun. I see he has retracted his article.

The bill voted on was NOT HR822. It was a resolution allowing a vote on the bill, which I beleive is scheduled for tomorrow.

No Go

I agree with BigSD, I hope it never passes. This would be a blatant violation of states' rights! DO NOT GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN STATE ISSUES!!!! We don't EVEN want to go down that road, there would be no end to it. It is an invitation for the feds to control EVERYTHING concerning guns! Even if it is inconvenient, this is clearly a state issue. Think about the long term repercussions and not just your desire to OC everywhere. We already have enough rules, laws and regulations from the feds, they are not our friends! We don't need any more!

I also hope it does not pass. Article 4, section 1 of the Constitution. Why the hell are you pushing for the feds to be involved? Another blow to the Constitution, good job, guys.

Ruby said:

I agree with BigSD, I hope it never passes. This would be a blatant violation of states' rights! DO NOT GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED IN STATE ISSUES!!!! We don't EVEN want to go down that road, there would be no end to it. It is an invitation for the feds to control EVERYTHING concerning guns! Even if it is inconvenient, this is clearly a state issue. Think about the long term repercussions and not just your desire to OC everywhere. We already have enough rules, laws and regulations from the feds, they are not our friends! We don't need any more!

Click to expand...

Clearly you have not read the bill. Read the damn bill... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112h4Puuj::

The bill only statutorily confirms that your concealed license is good in any other state and that you can not be denied this right. (Do you think you can be denied your right to attend church in a state you do not reside in?)

You MUST carry following the laws of the state you are visiting.

For all of you purists, you are wrong.

gogodawgs said:

Clearly you have not read the bill. Read the damn bill... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112h4Puuj::

The bill only statutorily confirms that your concealed license is good in any other state and that you can not be denied this right. (Do you think you can be denied your right to attend church in a state you do not reside in?)

You MUST carry following the laws of the state you are visiting.

For all of you purists, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

+1

gogodawgs said:

Clearly you have not read the bill. Read the damn bill... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112h4Puuj::

The bill only statutorily confirms that your concealed license is good in any other state and that you can not be denied this right. (Do you think you can be denied your right to attend church in a state you do not reside in?)

You MUST carry following the laws of the state you are visiting.

For all of you purists, you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Well said.

I have my reservations regarding this bill. One, the states will simply increase the number of places that are off limits to carry. States may decide to circumvent the law because they believe it to be "against state's rights and therefore unconstitutional." I'm not saying I agree with it, but states will make that claim when it suits their capitol's agenda. New York, Maryland, and New Jersey strike me as the states that would just ignore this law if it passed.

I am also wondering how the bill would help residents in highly restrictive states carry in their home states if they got non-res permits from a neighboring state. (A MD resident getting a VA non-res permit)

Also down the road, what is to stop the feds from assuming control over the permitting process. I understand that to be a common argument against the bill -- and the NRA and other groups think it is unfounded -- why?

acmariner99 said:

I have my reservations regarding this bill. One, the states will simply increase the number of places that are off limits to carry. States may decide to circumvent the law because they believe it to be "against state's rights and therefore unconstitutional." I'm not saying I agree with it, but states will make that claim when it suits their capitol's agenda. New York, Maryland, and New Jersey strike me as the states that would just ignore this law if it passed.

I am also wondering how the bill would help residents in highly restrictive states carry in their home states if they got non-res permits from a neighboring state. (A MD resident getting a VA non-res permit)

Also down the road, what is to stop the feds from assuming control over the permitting process. I understand that to be a common argument against the bill -- and the NRA and other groups think it is unfounded -- why?

Click to expand...

Those are certainly possibilities but I don't see any states choosing to ignore federal law. For one it would put them in financial jeopardy.

Your second point is not really a concern because most states do not recognize an out of state permit held by a resident. That is how Wa. is. Under the reciprocity law Wa. only recognizes the holder of a permit that we have reciprocity with as long as they are not a resident of Wa. Once you become a resident of Wa. only a Wa. CPL is recognized.

Assuming control of the permitting process would be even a harder bill to sell than recognizing permits under the 14th amendment.

acmariner99 said:

I have my reservations regarding this bill. One, the states will simply increase the number of places that are off limits to carry. States may decide to circumvent the law because they believe it to be "against state's rights and therefore unconstitutional." I'm not saying I agree with it, but states will make that claim when it suits their capitol's agenda. New York, Maryland, and New Jersey strike me as the states that would just ignore this law if it passed. They can pass laws that restrict more places now. States are bound by the political conditions within that state and this bill will not create more off limit places, states would do that at their own peril against their own electorate. This is a false argument.

I am also wondering how the bill would help residents in highly restrictive states carry in their home states if they got non-res permits from a neighboring state. (A MD resident getting a VA non-res permit) It does not help as most states only recognize non-res permits of non-res and not residents. But this is an area to be watched.

Also down the road, what is to stop the feds from assuming control over the permitting process. I understand that to be a common argument against the bill -- and the NRA and other groups think it is unfounded -- why? Did you read the bill? Where in the bill does congress authorize a permitting process? Simply put it does not, that would require a unique and seperate bill that amends USC 18.

Click to expand...

acmariner99....good job with some legitimate questions...

Some really nasty amendments have been offered and will be discussed and voted on before the bill. As far as I'm concerened every single one of them is a bill killer.
The 10 amendments that will be considered during debate on HR 822 all come from those opposed to it. Given the number of Representatives who voted for H.Res. 463 and who co-sponsored the bill, they have virtually no chance of passing. A summary is below. Notice the last name on the list... our own RINO from the 8th District!

SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS MADE IN ORDER

1. Woodall (GA): Would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements. (10 minutes)

2. McCarthy, Carolyn (NY): Would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill. (10 minutes)

3. Hastings, Alcee (FL): Would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station. (10 minutes)

4. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a state to create a comprehensive database that would contain all permits and licenses issued by the State for carrying a concealed weapon and would make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day. (10 minutes)

5. Conyers (MI): Would preserve state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry. (10 minutes)

6. Johnson, Hank (GA): Would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to that state's law regarding concealed carry in regards to firearm safety training that includes live-fire exercise. (10 minutes)

7. Cohen (TN): Would exempt from the bill any State law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun. (10 minutes)

8. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a person provide at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the State of the intention to possess or carry a concealed handgun in the State (10 minutes)

9. Cicilline (RI): 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. (10 minutes)

10. Reichert (WA): Would require a GAO study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits. (10 minutes)

Right Wing Wacko said:

1. Woodall (GA): Would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements. (10 minutes)

2. McCarthy, Carolyn (NY): Would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill. (10 minutes)

3. Hastings, Alcee (FL): Would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application at their local law enforcement station. (10 minutes)

4. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a state to create a comprehensive database that would contain all permits and licenses issued by the State for carrying a concealed weapon and would make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day. (10 minutes)

5. Conyers (MI): Would preserve state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry. (10 minutes)

6. Johnson, Hank (GA): Would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to that state's law regarding concealed carry in regards to firearm safety training that includes live-fire exercise. (10 minutes)

7. Cohen (TN): Would exempt from the bill any State law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun. (10 minutes)

8. Jackson Lee (TX): Would require a person provide at least 24 hours notice to a law enforcement officer of the State of the intention to possess or carry a concealed handgun in the State (10 minutes)

9. Cicilline (RI): 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. (10 minutes)

10. Reichert (WA): Would require a GAO study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits. (10 minutes)

Click to expand...

1) The bill would maintain reciprocity with those states -- you would be able to carry in any state with a CC law
2) As I suspected, highly restrictive states will try to find any way to avoid enforcing this law within their borders
3) huh?
4) yay, CC registration!!
5) I would have expected a state's requirements for CC to stay unchanged
6) In other words, unless you have reciprocity with that state you have to take a class to carry concealed if that permit is not recognized.
7) I believe many if not most states require a person to be 21 to carry concealed anyway
8) A statement like that coming from Texas blows my mind.
9) See #2
10) Don't states ensure recognized permits are valid anyway?

The one problem I wish this bill would solve is help grant some ability to residents of restrictive states the ability to carry in those states. Those law abiding citizens are just out of luck until they travel outside their home state's borders.