Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 134

Thread: House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54

    Cool House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill!!!! YES!!!


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54
    I' can't yet find the seven republicans who voted against it..

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Not really a great day... The Senate will destroy this bill. If for some impossible reason they pass it then Obama will veto it. This is good. We don't want this bill to pass. There is no need for further federal government intrusion into state's rights.
    Last edited by thebigsd; 11-16-2011 at 06:39 PM.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54
    Any step forward for gun rights is a good step, Veto'd or not... it shows a force of American demand..

  5. #5
    Regular Member Baked on Grease's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Va.
    Posts
    652
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Not really a great day... The Senate will destroy this bill. If for some impossible reason they pass it then Obama will veto it. This is good. We don't want this bill to pass. There is no need for further federal government intrusion into state's rights.
    Yes and no.

    Yes in that I don't want the Feds to be able to make their own rules about it. No in that the only Federal gun bill that is good is one that preempts states from making laws that restrict beyond what the 2nd amendment allows them to...

    Sent using tapatalk
    "A Right Un-exercised is a Right Lost"

    "According to the law, [openly carrying] in a vehicle is against the law if the weapon is concealed" -Flamethrower (think about it....)

    Carrying an XDm 9mm with Hornady Critical Defense hollowpoint. Soon to be carrying a Ruger along with it....

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    This has the potential to be really bad. It will probably die in the senate. The question is how will antigunners spin it. If it dies quietly then it will be ok. If it gets attention it could help tyrants point to something as a win. If it gets vetoed by the Pres it could go either way, really bad because antigunners show up in force to support him or really good because middle of the road gun owners decide against him; it will have a big impact if it makes it to him one way or the other. I hate to think what might happen if the Pres signs it, but I don't think it will make it to him. I hope someone is ready to use any votes against this bill to beat up certain congressmen; passing a bill like this as a statement is stupid.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Not really a great day... The Senate will destroy this bill. If for some impossible reason they pass it then Obama will veto it. This is good. We don't want this bill to pass. There is no need for further federal government intrusion into state's rights.
    Big SD. My man. You're right, we don't want federal intrusion into state's rights. But the states have intruded into the WE THE PEOPLE's rights. Since the constitution doesn't mean crap and the states are allowed to shred the constitution, (specifically amendment number 2 in this case) this bill is doing something unconstitutional to fight something unconstitutional. In a country where the constitution is dead and the American voters have abandoned the American revolution and the idea of freedom - I think this is the best we can do for now.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Quote Originally Posted by Schlitz View Post
    Big SD. My man. You're right, we don't want federal intrusion into state's rights. But the states have intruded into the WE THE PEOPLE's rights. Since the constitution doesn't mean crap and the states are allowed to shred the constitution, (specifically amendment number 2 in this case) this bill is doing something unconstitutional to fight something unconstitutional. In a country where the constitution is dead and the American voters have abandoned the American revolution and the idea of freedom - I think this is the best we can do for now.
    Isn't that like two wrongs don't make a right?

    I see where you're coming from but this bill still doesn't allow folks to carry in DC or Illinois. I may be a step forward but it is a dangerous one.
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran ComradeV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Maple Hill, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    430

    Constitution

    I would have to disagree with the notion that states have rights. They have powers(or authority) that is granted to them by the People of the United States of America. This seems to be specifically what the Federal government's job is; the job of protecting the rights of the People, because people have rights, from the abuse of those rights by the authority of the State governments.

    If the law granted more powers of regulation to the Federal government, than that would make it something requiring strong scrutiny. Since it merely restores the right of citizens which we should have(the equal protection of our immunities and privileges) then it seems to be constitutional for the Feds to mandate that the States respect our right.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,226
    Quote Originally Posted by ComradeV View Post
    I would have to disagree with the notion that states have rights. They have powers(or authority) that is granted to them by the People of the United States of America. This seems to be specifically what the Federal government's job is; the job of protecting the rights of the People, because people have rights, from the abuse of those rights by the authority of the State governments.

    If the law granted more powers of regulation to the Federal government, than that would make it something requiring strong scrutiny. Since it merely restores the right of citizens which we should have(the equal protection of our immunities and privileges) then it seems to be constitutional for the Feds to mandate that the States respect our right.
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
    As you say there are no "rights" of states. I see nowhere in the 10th amendment or anywhere in the constitution mention of governments having Rights, only powers. This is important, because powers can be taken away, though it is important to keep power from being centralized to the feds.
    Don't believe any facts that I say! This is the internet and it is filled with lies and untruth. I invite you to look up for yourself the basic facts that my arguments might be based upon. This way we can have a discussion where logic and hints on where to find information are what is brought to the forum and people look up and verify facts for themselves.

  11. #11
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    In NO WAY is this good! The bill as written can be used to do a 180 degree reversal.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Moore, OK
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    I' can't yet find the seven republicans who voted against it..
    Amash, Justin (MI)
    Dold, Robert (IL)
    Grimm, Michael (NY)
    King, Pete (NY)
    Lungren, Daniel E. (CA)
    Turner, Robert (NY)
    Woodall, Robert (GA)

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Wi
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    In NO WAY is this good! The bill as written can be used to do a 180 degree reversal.
    Ok, I admit, I'm not following this topic much but if that was the case, why would Obummer overturn it?

  14. #14
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    Any step forward for gun rights is a good step, Veto'd or not... it shows a force of American demand..
    Yes, it does definitely make a statement about the wishes of a fairly good segment of America's citizens.
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  15. #15
    Regular Member MilProGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Mississippi
    Posts
    1,228
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Amash, Justin (MI)
    Dold, Robert (IL)
    Grimm, Michael (NY)
    King, Pete (NY)
    Lungren, Daniel E. (CA)
    Turner, Robert (NY)
    Woodall, Robert (GA)
    Dang, I'm downright proud of my senators from MS!
    Proud Veteran ~ U.S. Army / Army Reserve

    Mississippi State Guard ~ Honorably Retired


  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Isn't that like two wrongs don't make a right?
    you gotta ask yourself one question; is it wrong to attempt to salvage whats left of the 2A after its been trampled by the states since the 2A will never be enforced as it is written?
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by thebigsd View Post
    Not really a great day... The Senate will destroy this bill. If for some impossible reason they pass it then Obama will veto it. This is good. We don't want this bill to pass. There is no need for further federal government intrusion into state's rights.
    This.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by hrdware View Post
    Amash, Justin (MI)
    Dold, Robert (IL)
    Grimm, Michael (NY)
    King, Pete (NY)
    Lungren, Daniel E. (CA)
    Turner, Robert (NY)
    Woodall, Robert (GA)
    Might want to find out WHY they downvoted it before you hang em high... This is a very bad bill and they may have been the only ones paying attention.

    It won't get past the senate anyway. For the wrong reasons... But I'm glad it isn't going to happen. It only erodes State's Rights, and further solidifies the permit concept as acceptable tyranny. There should be no permits, and no need for reciprocity. Inflating the Fed Guv even more is not what we need.
    Last edited by ixtow; 11-17-2011 at 12:11 AM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    Any step forward for gun rights is a good step, Veto'd or not... it shows a force of American demand..
    The ends do not justify the means. Especially when the 'means' is further erosion of the Constitution, and the 'ends' is a dubious strengthening of the PERMISSION to keep and bear arms. What Congress giveth, Congress can also take away.

    As for American demand... politicians pandering to the national majority is what got us into this mess. Our representatives should be representing their voting constituents, not toeing a party line and usurping more power for themselves and their cronies. We need a return to the Constitutional Republic this nation was founded as, not more feel good placebos from big government.

  20. #20
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    What I see is people that have another agenda are against this bill.

    HR822 was specificially written to stay within the constitution. Here is a very good analysis of HR 822 verses what the constitution states: http://davekopel.org/Testimony/HR822-Kopel.pdf

    Take the time to read it before you slam the bill. Also, it will be years before we get some relief from the courts. I am sure it will not happen in my lifetime.

    There are practical things here too. This has a chance. last year a very similar bill almost made it through the Senate...Harry Reid even voted for it. Another small point. a presidential veto would be political suicide...you don't think so.

    Here in WA the Brady type "ceasefire WA" has 5000 members. There are over 345,000 ACTIVE CPL's in WA. How do you like them odds? Do you think any politico is going to anger that kind of margin in an election year? Get 5000 angry at you, or 500,000?

    This law may upset a larger margin in NY and NJ, but I'll still bet that even in those states there are potentially more pro 2A voters then true anti 2A,

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Centreville, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    581
    I agree with those who warn about dangers of this law. For how much I'd love to be able to carry in all 50 states, this is really not a right vehicle to do it. I haven't had a chance to read the law, but from the bits and pieces that I saw, it appears that is has already been amended to the point of being borderline dangerous. I can imagine that it will only get worse in the Senate.

    Passing a federal law to fight states laws, even bad ones, is never a good thing. I can this thing going really bad really fast. It won't be long before someone will amend it with uniform federal CHP/CWP requirments which will gradually become more and more stringent to the point when it essentially becomes a nationwide restrictive "may issue" and effectively "no issue".

    There are a couple of ways where federal involvement can be benefitial and proper though. I'd love to see a SCOTUS ruling declaring Nationwide Constitutional Carry on the basis of 2nd Amendment. Or a Federal law that simply makes it illegal for any locality to pass any laws that conflict with the US Constitution. Either way, this elaborate overlegislated proposal doesn't seem like a good place to start...

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Chaingun81 View Post
    Or a Federal law that simply makes it illegal for any locality to pass any laws that conflict with the US Constitution.
    We already have this. It IS the Constitution. That's what it's for...

    But who uses that old thing anymore? It's just a silly old piece of paper. And if we refuse to fight for it, it will burn. The notion of taking up arms against the State is EXACTLY what it is for, yet anyone who suggests it is poopooed as a crazy... Until that backwards attitude changes, we're screwed.
    Last edited by ixtow; 11-17-2011 at 01:06 AM.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786
    I'd love to be able to carry in all 50 states. This law doesn't give us that, so that is a poor argument in its favor. The best it gives us is the ability to carry in states like CA, NJ, NY that have licensing provisions but the citizens of the state can't seem to get approved for licenses. How does that affirm the privileges and immunities of those citizens? How does an Alabamian carrying where a Californian can't make the Californian more equal?

    Re: Mr. Kopel's testimony:

    If he agrees that the commerce clause is being abused, why does he support the further abuse thereof? If he feels that the law furthers the privileges and immunities of the citizens of various states, why not use that authority instead of the questionable commerce clause? How does extending the government granted privilege of carrying concealed protect the "right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in the second State"? Specifically how does it do so in states where carry of any type is disallowed or frowned upon? I'm still an 'unfriendly alien' if I travel to Illinois with my otherwise lawful sidearm, right?

    And I loved his straw man. Imagine! Passing HR 822 would be so much easier than deploying thousands of specially tasked federal law enforcement agents to monitor and protect interstate commerce. Wow! You know what would be even easier? "No state shall pass or enforce any law, policy, or rule, which shall have the effect of limiting or denying the citizen's right to bear arms for defense." But even with HR 822, resources will have to be diverted to enforce this new law for it to have any teeth. Maybe not thousands of dedicated federal agents, but still resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

    He goes on to say "The denial of constitutional rights is in itself a tremendous harm. There is no more important purpose for congressional action than the protection of the national rights of citizenship guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America." He's absolutely right! But how does that apply to this bill? This legislation will give Federal blessing to the patchwork of infringements that now exist across the several states. Furthermore it opens up the interstate traveler to increased liability. One may not have been allowed to carry to defend oneself the current way, but it is much easier to remember a list of states you are not allowed to carry in than it is to remember all of the various differences between one states weapons laws and the next. How can such a law be said to protect the rights of an interstate traveler?

    He cites, "Legislation which deters or remedies constitutional violations can fall within the sweep of Congress’ enforcement power even if in the process it prohibits conduct which is not itself unconstitutional and intrudes into ‘legislative spheres of autonomy previously reserved to the States'." But he fails to explain how legitimizing a patchwork of weapons restrictions could possible remedy any constitutional violations. How dare Congress prohibit a state from infringing on the permission slip of another state, when they can't be bothered to step in a protect the second amendment rights of the citizens in those same states. I hope the liberal nutcases in California and New York band together and get this law thrown out for imposing carry in their states. There are better ways to protect the RKBA than this heavy handed power grab. We shouldn't celebrate this law as "better than what we have now". We should take the time to do it right. Haste makes Waste.

    The biggest departure from sanity comes when he brings up the concept of Open Carry. He correctly points out that in almost every state one or the other is legal. He correctly points out that states like New Jersey are just as intolerant of one as the other. He correctly points out that more states require and issue licenses for concealed carry than for open carry. Somehow, though, he makes the leap that the best way to handle this is for Congress to step in and make every state honor the license for concealed carry, and not honor unlicensed open carry. It hearkens back to the earlier 'commerce' argument. Supposedly Congress can force the other states to honor a state specific permission slip, but can't force them to honor the second amendment, which has already been ruled to apply to the states. Makes perfect sense, right?

    I couldn't read past the part where he points out how stupid the interstate commerce abuse is, before going into detail about how it makes this proposed legislation valid. I can only imagine the amount of rationalization he had to to do resolve that little bit of cognitive dissonance.





    tl;dr Kopel is a sell-out and a tool, who probably means well but is making some good arguments for the wrong bill.
    Last edited by Brimstone Baritone; 11-17-2011 at 02:22 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    KC
    Posts
    1,012
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    In NO WAY is this good! The bill as written can be used to do a 180 degree reversal.
    How would that work exactly?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by kcgunfan View Post
    How would that work exactly?

    Sent from my T-Mobile G2 using Tapatalk
    What the Federal Government giveth with the stroke of a pen, it can take away with another.

    Concealed permits should be like driver's permits, good ANYWHERE in the CONUS (including DC and Illinois) without needing to pass a law.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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