Bill 822

gogodawgs · Nov 21, 2011

heresolong said:
Gogo,

Could you give us a citation as to where you are finding this process spelled out? I have followed quite a few bills and frequently have seen a bill passed out of the Senate with the same bill number as the house and no indication of any Senate sponsor. If the committee as a whole adopts the bill, how does that require that an individual senator sponsor the bill and introduce it as a Senate bill. I would appreciate a citation as the Senate rules do not mention this. Here is the quote from the Senate's website:

In the Seante rules. http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RulesOfSenateHome

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%2CW%3B %40

True you can see the bill with the house number the same. If you have seen one with no Senate sponsor that would be impossible, someone has to introduce the bill and that person by definition is a sponsor.

Previously it was stated that the bill was read twice....that is a bit of a misnomer. When a bill is reported to the Judiciary and there are no objections then it is entered into the record as read twice. It is possible the bill just sits there and is never voted, at the end of this congress the bill dies. As of now two readings mean that it is in the Judiciary committee and not on the Senate calendar and thus must go through the committee procedures and rules before the whole Senate can vote upon the bill.

MadHatter66 · Nov 22, 2011

FMCDH said:
OMG

The pain in my head right now, I just barely got through that....so painful.

Who in elects these people to term after term? My 4yo niece is more eloquent that she is, and probably know more about gun laws...

amlevin · Nov 22, 2011

MadHatter66 said:
Who in elects these people to term after term?

Simple answer is "The Voters". The people who think that "Their Guy" has done a great job of bringing home the bacon. Getting tons of Federal money spent in their town by getting bridges to nowhere built and keeping open Military bases that became irrelevant in 1945.

As long as things were going well, and the "well" hadn't run dry, they just kept voting for the incumbent.

The 2012 Election is going to be a real interesting one.

Right Wing Wacko · Nov 22, 2011

Hmm, here's a non-response if I ever read one.

Dear Mr. West,

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits for firearms falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a "shall-issue" state, meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides what out-of-state permits it will honor. This is done via reciprocity and recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).

On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822) in the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposed legislation was passed out of the House of Representatives and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it is awaiting further review. If enacted, this legislation would amend the federal criminal code to authorize a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with that state's restrictions. The legislation would not apply to those prohibited from possessing, transporting, or receiving firearms under federal law.

As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

heresolong · Nov 22, 2011

gogodawgs said:
In the Seante rules. http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RulesOfSenateHome

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%2CW%3B %40

The first URL is all the Senate rules and I can't find a single rule that says a House bill has to have a Senate sponsor.

The second URL actually doesn't support what you say. It says that bills from the House are generally referred to committee but may be placed directly on the Senate calendar if there is no objection. Says nothing about requiring a Senate sponsor.

True you can see the bill with the house number the same. If you have seen one with no Senate sponsor that would be impossible, someone has to introduce the bill and that person by definition is a sponsor.

I have seen numerous bills that have passed the Senate after being passed by the House. When you look in thomas you can see all action and they do not have a Senate sponsor listed. Here is one example that I found by browsing through a few bills from a couple years ago. It had one sponsor, was listed as passing the House and being referred to a Senate at which point it was placed on the calendar without objection and passed by the Senate on a voice vote.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR04314:@@@X

Previously it was stated that the bill was read twice....that is a bit of a misnomer. When a bill is reported to the Judiciary and there are no objections then it is entered into the record as read twice. It is possible the bill just sits there and is never voted, at the end of this congress the bill dies. As of now two readings mean that it is in the Judiciary committee and not on the Senate calendar and thus must go through the committee procedures and rules before the whole Senate can vote upon the bill.

Agreed. However, not trying to be argumentative, I just don't see anything in the rules that you posted or the links you provided that requires that a bill from the House have a Sponsor. It is sent to the committee and they add it to their calendar. Now if you are saying that it will only get added to the calendar if someone on the committee asks for it to be added, and if you are claiming that this person is the "de facto" sponsor, that would be one thing, in which case we might be in agreement, I just don't see that the rules require, as you have stated, that a House bill have a Senate sponsor and a companion bill.

MadHatter66 · Nov 22, 2011

amlevin said:
Simple answer is "The Voters". The people who think that "Their Guy" has done a great job of bringing home the bacon. Getting tons of Federal money spent in their town by getting bridges to nowhere built and keeping open Military bases that became irrelevant in 1945.

As long as things were going well, and the "well" hadn't run dry, they just kept voting for the incumbent.

The 2012 Election is going to be a real interesting one.

Yes it is... What is interesting is that during the campaign they speak from their scripts well... When the public eye is off after the election, they sound like morons while speaking to the assembly... Probably 99% of the voters out there ever actually see them in action looking like fools...

apjonas · Nov 26, 2011

Not Quite

Metalhead47 said:
A beacon of reason as always Gogo.

C'mon guys, really? Wasn't there just a SCOTUS case that affirmed that the 2A actually does apply to the states after all, and therefore it's legitimate for the fed to enforce the US Constitution upon the states? Hmmm. This is merely one VERY small step in the battle. Stop forsaking the good while hoping for the perfect. We are NOT going to wake up one day to discover Ron Paul has magically repealed all the unconstitutional gun laws from every state.

Neither SCOTUS nor any federal court has held that concealed carry is a right protected by the 2A. Any support for 822 on that basis is misplaced.

Last I checked, drivers licences are honored in all states even though they have varying standards to acquire one... and the Feds are generally NOT involved there, either.

While generally there is recognition of a DL, this is done by agreement among the states, not fiat from Washington. States have the ability recognize a carry permit from another state now if they choose - it's called recognition or reciprocity. Basically 822 supporters want to be liberals on this one issue - get what they want by the heavy hand of the central government. All the claptrap about "enforcing the constitution" is just window dressing. There's not enough lipstick at Revlon to make this pig look good.

Metalhead47 · Nov 26, 2011

apjonas said:
Neither SCOTUS nor any federal court has held that concealed carry is a right protected by the 2A. Any support for 822 on that basis is misplaced.

Let me correct that for you. The scotus has not YET held that carry of any sort is a right. Many believe such a ruling will eventually come down.

And the sc saying something doesn't make it RIGHT, only legal. Many would say the 2a guarantees the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, regardless of what the court says.

apjonas said:
While generally there is recognition of a DL, this is done by agreement among the states, not fiat from Washington. States have the ability recognize a carry permit from another state now if they choose - it's called recognition or reciprocity. Basically 822 supporters want to be liberals on this one issue - get what they want by the heavy hand of the central government. All the claptrap about "enforcing the constitution" is just window dressing. There's not enough lipstick at Revlon to make this pig look good.

Think what you want. The bill of rights DOES, in fact, apply to the states, and it is legitimate for the federal govt to enforce it upon them. Even if this bill is only a small step doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, you're setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment when you insist on forsaking the good while awaiting the perfect. 'taint gonna happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jsanchez · Dec 2, 2011

Got this from Cantwell.

Dear Mr. Sanchez,

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Under existing law, the authority to issue concealed carry permits for firearms falls within state jurisdiction. Washington State is a "shall-issue" state, meaning that residents who meet the necessary criteria (e.g. at least 21 years of age) shall be issued a concealed carry permit upon request. Currently, each state decides what out-of-state permits it will honor. This is done via reciprocity and recognition agreements. In Washington State, the concealed carry permits of other states receive reciprocity only if the licensing state: (1) does not issue permits to individuals under the age of 21, and (2) requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history (RCW 9.41.073).

On February 18, 2011, Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (H.R. 822) in the U.S. House of Representatives. This proposed legislation was passed out of the House of Representatives and has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, where it is awaiting further review. If enacted, this legislation would amend the federal criminal code to authorize a person with a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm issued by one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with that state's restrictions. The legislation would not apply to those prohibited from possessing, transporting, or receiving firearms under federal law.

As your Senator, you can be assured that I will work to protect the legitimate rights of law-abiding American gun-owners, while continuing to support responsible gun control legislation to reduce crime and make our communities safer. I believe both of these goals are important and can be simultaneously accomplished through common-sense gun laws and stricter enforcement of existing laws.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. You may also be interested in signing up for periodic updates for Washington State residents. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

FMCDH · Dec 2, 2011

Got this from Inslee

Once again, I must note....STATES DON'T HAVE RIGHTS! :banghead:

Dear Sir

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. As always, I appreciate hearing from you.

As the 112th Congress addresses gun safety issues, I would like you to know that I believe that law-abiding adults and non felons should have the ability to own firearms for hunting, target shooting, recreational purposes, and self-protection. My goal in gun safety debates will be to preserve our Second Amendment rights while keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and untrained children.

On November 16th, 2011 H.R. 822 passed the House of Representatives without my support. As you may know, H.R. 822 would allow persons holding a concealed firearm permit in one state to carry that firearm in another state as long as they are not prohibited from doing so under federal law. I voted against H.R. 822 because states currently have reciprocity laws that are working, and I felt that this bill infringes on a state's right to create public safety standards, by forcing states to accept the concealed weapons standards of every other state, regardless of how weak or unsatisfactory they deem those standards to be. In addition, H.R. 822 was opposed by law enforcement groups across the nation as well as domestic violence organizations. I support policies that enhance the public safety without infringing on the rights of the law-abiding citizens and felt that this bill failed to live up to those standards.

You may be interested to know that during the 109th Congress I voted for the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 (H.R. 5013). This bill would have prohibited the confiscation of legally possessed firearms during a national emergency in areas where such arms are permitted. However, H.R. 5013 was not considered by the Senate before the 109th Congress adjourned and, therefore, was not enacted into law.

I believe that we must also have strong penalties for criminals and preventative programs that reduce crimes. Accordingly, I have voted to deter crime with stiff penalties for drug dealers, murderers, and rapists, as well as voting for preventative programs to help keep kids away from a life of crime. While in Congress, I voted for "Three Strikes, and You're Out" for repeat offenders and measures to expand the death penalty.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about such an important issue. For news on current federal legislative issues, please visit my website at www.house.gov/inslee, where you can also sign up to receive my e-newsletter. My office is here to serve you, so please feel free to contact us in Shoreline at 206-361-0233 or in Washington, D.C. at 202-225-6311 for assistance.

Very truly yours,

JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress

Jayd1981 · Dec 2, 2011

I swear I could feel smoke being blown up my a$$ while I was reading those responses.

FMCDH · Dec 2, 2011

jsanchez said:
Dear Mr. Sanchez,

Thank you for contacting me with your comments regarding concealed carry laws and reciprocity agreements. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue...

jsanchez, were you requesting a synopsis of the bill or asking for her position on the bill? :lol:

I swear....at-least Inslee has the guts to give his stance, flawed tho it may be.

MadHatter66 · Dec 2, 2011

[RANT] What I find interesting is that they keep bringing up the states having different requirements to get a CPL/CWP/CCW/whatever else they call them, but this will force every other state to accept something that is less strict than they have in place. They already accept drivers licenses, and which is basically the same principal that is being used against us here. The process to get a drivers license isn't the same in all states, hell the drive test can be completely different based on what DOL office you go to here in WA. I didn't have to parallel park when I took mine because they examiner "[didn't] feel like getting out of the car" that day...His words, not mine... Although that was 14 years ago...

It just seems like such a flimsy argument, while they will let someone hurtle a 3000lb car down the road at 60mph, and not be entirely sure of the amount of training or the process they had to undergo for a drivers license. I am sure that I wanted to start digging I could find states that require your to bend over backwards to get your license, and some that are really lax. Unless I am mistaken and there is now a national standard for drivers licensing. [/RANT]

A 3000lb car @ 60mph would be ~360,000ft-lb of energy upon impact with an object. By comparison a .50BMG has ~11,000ft-lb at the muzzle...A .45ACP ~400ft-lb at the muzzle........ Just in case anyone was wondering :uhoh:

jsanchez · Dec 2, 2011

FMCDH said:
jsanchez, were you requesting a synopsis of the bill or asking for her position on the bill? :lol:

I swear....at-least Inslee has the guts to give his stance, flawed tho it may be.

I told her my position and ask her to vote that way.

jsanchez · Dec 2, 2011

MadHatter66 said:
A 3000lb car @ 60mph would be ~360,000ft-lb of energy upon impact with an object. By comparison a .50BMG has ~11,000ft-lb at the muzzle...A .45ACP ~400ft-lb at the muzzle........ Just in case anyone was wondering :uhoh:

I liked your point about drivers licenses and will include it my emails to my other state represenitives in congress. I also like your scientific facts on comparing cars to guns.

Kildars · Dec 3, 2011

Metalhead47 said:
Let me correct that for you. The scotus has not YET held that carry of any sort is a right. Many believe such a ruling will eventually come down.

And the sc saying something doesn't make it RIGHT, only legal. Many would say the 2a guarantees the right to carry, concealed or otherwise, regardless of what the court says.

It doesn't really matter what many would say. When it comes to legal issues the supreme court generally has the last say. It's a weak argument to argue that we should pass the bill on the notion that sometime in the future the supreme court may include concealed carry as a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

Think what you want. The bill of rights DOES, in fact, apply to the states, and it is legitimate for the federal govt to enforce it upon them. Even if this bill is only a small step doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, you're setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment when you insist on forsaking the good while awaiting the perfect. 'taint gonna happen.

The bill of rights applies to the states through selective incorporation, thanks the the supreme court. The founders intended the Federal Constitution to apply only to the federal government.

If you actually believe in the roles of governments, you would oppose this bill like he his. When you support when government steps out of bounds just because it supports your cause it makes you a hypocrite and undermines credibility of your "principles."

Kildars · Dec 3, 2011

It is hilarious to hear liberals get up in front of congress and argue for states rights and limited government though.

Jayd1981 · Dec 3, 2011

Kildars said:
The founders intended the Federal Constitution to apply only to the federal government.

If you actually believe in the roles of governments, you would oppose this bill like he his. When you support when government steps out of bounds just because it supports your cause it makes you a hypocrite and undermines credibility of your "principles."

Let me get this straight. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from adopting a national religion, but it is ok for states to do so. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from infringing on peoples right to assemble, but it is ok for the states to do so. The founders wanted to keep the federal government from infringing on your right to remain silent, but it is ok for the states to do so.

That is ridiculous to think the founding fathers wanted to stop the federal government from infinging on fundamental individual rights, but would be ok with the states infringing on those same rights.

Metalhead47 · Dec 3, 2011

Kildars said:
It doesn't really matter what many would say. When it comes to legal issues the supreme court generally has the last say. It's a weak argument to argue that we should pass the bill on the notion that sometime in the future the supreme court may include concealed carry as a right protected by the 2nd amendment.

The bill of rights applies to the states through selective incorporation, thanks the the supreme court. The founders intended the Federal Constitution to apply only to the federal government.

If you actually believe in the roles of governments, you would oppose this bill like he his. When you support when government steps out of bounds just because it supports your cause it makes you a hypocrite and undermines credibility of your "principles."

Every human being who ever lived ('cept One) is a hypocrite. That includes you. I've made my points. The gov't is not stepping out of bounds, it's doing the right thing... albeit for the wrong reasons. Yes, this bill is an imperfect and flawed advance, but here in the real world, that's often the best we can hope for. We are not going to wake up one day to discover the Ron Paul fairy has magically restored full constitutional carry to all the states. It was through incrementalism and a few dirty tricks that our rights were lost, that's the only way we're getting them back.

The states never had the "right" to restrict carry, concealed or otherwise, in the first place.

amlevin · Dec 3, 2011

Jayd1981 said:
That is ridiculous to think the founding fathers wanted to stop the federal government from infinging on fundamental individual rights, but would be ok with the states infringing on those same rights.

What's so hard to understand? The Founding Fathers recognized that there would be different values and ideas in the various areas of the Country and they didn't want to see a "Supreme" central government. With the exception of those rights enumerated in the Constitution and BOR's they wanted the States to be free to govern their citizens as they saw fit. What's happened is that the States have ceded the rights they originally had in order to nurse at the Federal Government's teat.

On the other hand, one of the weaknesses of our original government, the Articles of Confederation, way too much power was vested in the States. Our Constitutional Republic was formed to solve some of the original problems with the "Confederation". That meant taking back some States power. Apparently this bill will accomplish a similar task by forcing States to honor other States carry permits.

Bill 822

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member