customcreationllc
Regular Member
Thanks for the contact I just sent Senator Blumenthal a message. Just short to the point.
-
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.
-
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.
H.R. 822... What are your thoughts??
- Thread starter 860faith
- Start date
Thanks for the contact I just sent Senator Blumenthal a message. Just short to the point.
beanoboy7
Regular Member
Response from John Larson
Thank you for contacting me about legislation regarding carrying concealed firearms across state lines. I appreciate concerns, and I hope that you find this response helpful.*
*
The issue of carrying a concealed firearm is generally left to individual states that set varying restrictions and eligibility requirements in order to obtain a concealed carry permit (CCP).* As you may be aware, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 822), introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed in the House of Representatives on November 16, 2011. This bill would allow the holder of a CCP to carry a concealed firearm in any state that does not expressly prohibit concealed firearms.*
*
I voted against this bill because I believe it is flawed from a number of standpoints.* First, it infringes on the ability of individual states to set their own standards for concealed carrying of firearms.* For example, Connecticut would have to honor the CCP of a Mississippi resident even if that resident would not meet Connecticut's standards for a CCP.* Second, this bill has the potential to be problematic for those who advocate for looser gun restrictions.* If a state such as Connecticut did not want to honor an out-of-state CCP, the only option available would be to cease issuing CCP's and to completely ban the carrying of concealed firearms for its residents.* While Illinois and the District of Columbia are the only states that currently forbid carrying a concealed firearm, it is possible that more states would follow if this legislation were enacted.* Lastly, under current law states already have the ability to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states to recognize each other's CCP's.*
*
Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.*
Thank you for contacting me about legislation regarding carrying concealed firearms across state lines. I appreciate concerns, and I hope that you find this response helpful.*
*
The issue of carrying a concealed firearm is generally left to individual states that set varying restrictions and eligibility requirements in order to obtain a concealed carry permit (CCP).* As you may be aware, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 822), introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed in the House of Representatives on November 16, 2011. This bill would allow the holder of a CCP to carry a concealed firearm in any state that does not expressly prohibit concealed firearms.*
*
I voted against this bill because I believe it is flawed from a number of standpoints.* First, it infringes on the ability of individual states to set their own standards for concealed carrying of firearms.* For example, Connecticut would have to honor the CCP of a Mississippi resident even if that resident would not meet Connecticut's standards for a CCP.* Second, this bill has the potential to be problematic for those who advocate for looser gun restrictions.* If a state such as Connecticut did not want to honor an out-of-state CCP, the only option available would be to cease issuing CCP's and to completely ban the carrying of concealed firearms for its residents.* While Illinois and the District of Columbia are the only states that currently forbid carrying a concealed firearm, it is possible that more states would follow if this legislation were enacted.* Lastly, under current law states already have the ability to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states to recognize each other's CCP's.*
*
Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me again if I can be of further assistance.*
Skinnedknuckles
Regular Member
I got the same disappointing message. I guess he didn't want to tell us this until it was too late to respond, but I plan to in any case. All we can do is continue to make our feelings and opinions known and make sure we vote at every election (as they say in Chicago - Vote Early and Often!) to really make our feelings known.
Ravery
New member
Richard Blumenthal
Sent an email to Richard urging him to supportand this was his reply
* * * * * *"Thank you for your message regarding the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing from you.
*
* * * * * *I support the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear firearms, as protected under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I have consistently said that the Second Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, secures for individuals a fundamental, constitutional right to bear arms. In considering any proposed gun safety measures, I am particularly mindful that the Supreme Court has ruled that any regulations on firearms must be narrowly drawn and carefully drafted to pass this constitutional test.
*
* * * * * *As you may know, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, has passed the House of Representatives. Each state has different requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Currently, individuals with concealed weapons permits can only carry concealed weapons in the state that has granted them such a permit — *or in other states that have voluntarily agreed to honor certain concealed weapons permits from other states. This legislation would override state discretion in this area, allowing individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry that weapon in any other state that allows concealed weapons under any permitting circumstances.
*
* * * * * *Many Connecticut citizens have expressed concerns that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people to obtain concealed weapons permits in states with much less stringent requirements to bring their concealed weapons into Connecticut. I am sympathetic to concerns raised by many in Connecticut about the effect this legislation could have on public safety, and its adverse effect on our state’s right to determine its own concealed weapons laws irrespective of what decisions other states may choose to make. I would consult with Connecticut law enforcement and other interested parties before voting on this bill in the Senate.
*
* * * * * *I am honored to serve as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over gun control issues. If I have the opportunity vote on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind."
Very much a politician
Sent an email to Richard urging him to supportand this was his reply
* * * * * *"Thank you for your message regarding the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. I appreciate hearing from you.
*
* * * * * *I support the right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear firearms, as protected under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I have consistently said that the Second Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the State of Connecticut, secures for individuals a fundamental, constitutional right to bear arms. In considering any proposed gun safety measures, I am particularly mindful that the Supreme Court has ruled that any regulations on firearms must be narrowly drawn and carefully drafted to pass this constitutional test.
*
* * * * * *As you may know, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, has passed the House of Representatives. Each state has different requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Currently, individuals with concealed weapons permits can only carry concealed weapons in the state that has granted them such a permit — *or in other states that have voluntarily agreed to honor certain concealed weapons permits from other states. This legislation would override state discretion in this area, allowing individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry that weapon in any other state that allows concealed weapons under any permitting circumstances.
*
* * * * * *Many Connecticut citizens have expressed concerns that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people to obtain concealed weapons permits in states with much less stringent requirements to bring their concealed weapons into Connecticut. I am sympathetic to concerns raised by many in Connecticut about the effect this legislation could have on public safety, and its adverse effect on our state’s right to determine its own concealed weapons laws irrespective of what decisions other states may choose to make. I would consult with Connecticut law enforcement and other interested parties before voting on this bill in the Senate.
*
* * * * * *I am honored to serve as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over gun control issues. If I have the opportunity vote on the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act in the Senate, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind."
Very much a politician
I just received this same letter from Dick today. I wonder what all the concerns are about law abiding citizens, bringing in their concealed firearms from other states. I got news for you Dick, criminals do it all the time, regardless of any law.
customcreationllc
Regular Member
What is looser permits are they talking about?
You still need a federal background check.
I know it has been a while it might be different. When I took my CT permit all it was 2hrs class 1 hr shoot and 1hr test that's it. How much looser can you get?
You still need a federal background check.
I know it has been a while it might be different. When I took my CT permit all it was 2hrs class 1 hr shoot and 1hr test that's it. How much looser can you get?
YeOldeFool
New member
I received the same
I got the same message; we need to keep pounding him with as many different constituents as possible. I sure that this is an appeasement to the pro-carry advocates; I personally believe he will side with the Ct antigun lobby. Everyone who believes in our right to carry needs to continue pressing him in hopes that he may reconsider.
I got the same message; we need to keep pounding him with as many different constituents as possible. I sure that this is an appeasement to the pro-carry advocates; I personally believe he will side with the Ct antigun lobby. Everyone who believes in our right to carry needs to continue pressing him in hopes that he may reconsider.
Skinnedknuckles
Regular Member
I also got the form letter and I responded last weekend. I haven't yet received any response, but we need to keep letting him know how we feel about the issue. My comment to him was that the citizens and LEO's of Connecticut don't need to worry about those who take the time, effort, and cost to gain a permit in any state. It is those who don't (and couldn't care less if CT says they should not carry a handgun) that we should all worry about. HR822 doesn't affect them in any way.
mrjam2jab
Regular Member
PA...fill out application....pay $20...walk out with license. It's a good thing. :lol:
customcreationllc
Regular Member
I got the same think for what it is worth I responded.
Senator Richard Blumenthal.
I know you’re a busy man and firearms are a touchy subject, most people are for or against very few can easily be persuaded to change sides mostly due to lack of firearm knowledge.
This law should be classified as a self protection law not a gun law. Gun law would be allowing the production of full auto weapons again.
This law just lets me protect my family with the best possible means beyond CT state lines. The last thing anyone wants to do is shoot or kill someone when the day comes where there is just as effective alternative weapon such as a freeze ray then I would be happy to switch, but realistically the best means for one to protect himself or his family is with a firearm period. For all the reason everyone states all the time, there are criminals out there doing bad things and police cannot be everywhere at all times.
Now getting to your comments.
As you may know, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, has passed the House of Representatives. Each state has different requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Currently, individuals with concealed weapons permits can only carry concealed weapons in the state that has granted them such a permit — or in other states that have voluntarily agreed to honor certain concealed weapons permits from other states. This legislation would override state discretion in this area, allowing individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry that weapon in any other state that allows concealed weapons under any permitting circumstances.
The individual states don't do enough in the sense of voluntarily agree to honor permits from other states. If they did I agree we wouldn't need this law. With the convenience and the requirement of travel these days it is hard to remain within your state boarder especially one as small as CT. In some cases like NY it is totally impossible to get an out of state permit, NY allows instate permits but the second your live one foot outside NY it is impossible to get a permit, is this right? How about MA, it cost over $100 a year and you have to renew in person never mind the money you need to spend for the initial training course and background check that I already did for my state.
States should not be trying to make money of the right to protect oneself. I cannot afford to get a permit for every state. I did however get a Utah Permit because they off the most states and they are among the cheapest.
Many Connecticut citizens have expressed concerns that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people to obtain concealed weapons permits in states with much less stringent requirements to bring their concealed weapons into Connecticut. I am sympathetic to concerns raised by many in Connecticut about the effect this legislation could have on public safety, and its adverse effect on our state’s right to determine its own concealed weapons laws irrespective of what decisions other states may choose to make. I would consult with Connecticut law enforcement and other interested parties before voting on this bill in the Senate.
Less stringent? What exactly do you want as a requirement? From what I’ve encountered there are 3 parts to getting a permit. 1) Background check which I believe all states have a very similar requirement there. 2) Teach safe handling of the firearm, don’t look down the barrel etc., this is all common knowledge. 3) Teach State laws, there is no excuse for not knowing the law, right? Every state is different laws some of which I don’t agree but have to fallow in that state, some states have magazine size limits, some don’t allow hollow point bullets, some don’t allow firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, some states don’t let you carry where you pay a fee to enter (movies), some states require the first word out of your mouth a the police, “I have a gun”, some states No Guns signs have the power of law some don’t, every state is different we know that and there is a ton of information out there to let us know the differences.
A little extra to think about.
I came up with this analogy to describe guns to people that don’t know much about them.
Are you scared of a parked car? No, why not it can easily kill people, it’s loaded with a full tank of gas and everything. Oh you need a person to drive it, to kill someone.
Then why aren’t you scared to drive walk down the road or a parking lot? Oh they are safe unless someone is reckless (accident) or someone is crazy and wants to drive someone over. Both happen just not often enough to be scared to walk down the road.
Well a gun is like the same thing a gun in a holster is like a parked car completely safe, when you pull the gun out it is like driving yes accident can happen and crazy people can kill others but just like with cars accidents are far and few between even more so than car accidents just guns makes a better news story. An accident with a gun at worst kills one person accident with a car can kill a family.
“How about if we band all guns wouldn’t that fix everything?” be realistic guns have been around for hundreds of years, all that has changed with the guns is that they became safer, more accurate and reliable. Even if you took every gun from every person, it doesn’t take much to build a gun, a tube with a spring and hammer. Come on they made those hundreds of years ago. Now they can make knock off I-pods, you don’t think criminals will find a way to make a gun? Just search Zip Gun
I would hope that you vote based off facts not feelings. Guns in citizens hands make society safer.
Thank you.
Senator Richard Blumenthal.
I know you’re a busy man and firearms are a touchy subject, most people are for or against very few can easily be persuaded to change sides mostly due to lack of firearm knowledge.
This law should be classified as a self protection law not a gun law. Gun law would be allowing the production of full auto weapons again.
This law just lets me protect my family with the best possible means beyond CT state lines. The last thing anyone wants to do is shoot or kill someone when the day comes where there is just as effective alternative weapon such as a freeze ray then I would be happy to switch, but realistically the best means for one to protect himself or his family is with a firearm period. For all the reason everyone states all the time, there are criminals out there doing bad things and police cannot be everywhere at all times.
Now getting to your comments.
As you may know, H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, has passed the House of Representatives. Each state has different requirements to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Currently, individuals with concealed weapons permits can only carry concealed weapons in the state that has granted them such a permit — or in other states that have voluntarily agreed to honor certain concealed weapons permits from other states. This legislation would override state discretion in this area, allowing individuals with a permit to carry a concealed weapon in one state to carry that weapon in any other state that allows concealed weapons under any permitting circumstances.
The individual states don't do enough in the sense of voluntarily agree to honor permits from other states. If they did I agree we wouldn't need this law. With the convenience and the requirement of travel these days it is hard to remain within your state boarder especially one as small as CT. In some cases like NY it is totally impossible to get an out of state permit, NY allows instate permits but the second your live one foot outside NY it is impossible to get a permit, is this right? How about MA, it cost over $100 a year and you have to renew in person never mind the money you need to spend for the initial training course and background check that I already did for my state.
States should not be trying to make money of the right to protect oneself. I cannot afford to get a permit for every state. I did however get a Utah Permit because they off the most states and they are among the cheapest.
Many Connecticut citizens have expressed concerns that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act would allow people to obtain concealed weapons permits in states with much less stringent requirements to bring their concealed weapons into Connecticut. I am sympathetic to concerns raised by many in Connecticut about the effect this legislation could have on public safety, and its adverse effect on our state’s right to determine its own concealed weapons laws irrespective of what decisions other states may choose to make. I would consult with Connecticut law enforcement and other interested parties before voting on this bill in the Senate.
Less stringent? What exactly do you want as a requirement? From what I’ve encountered there are 3 parts to getting a permit. 1) Background check which I believe all states have a very similar requirement there. 2) Teach safe handling of the firearm, don’t look down the barrel etc., this is all common knowledge. 3) Teach State laws, there is no excuse for not knowing the law, right? Every state is different laws some of which I don’t agree but have to fallow in that state, some states have magazine size limits, some don’t allow hollow point bullets, some don’t allow firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol, some states don’t let you carry where you pay a fee to enter (movies), some states require the first word out of your mouth a the police, “I have a gun”, some states No Guns signs have the power of law some don’t, every state is different we know that and there is a ton of information out there to let us know the differences.
A little extra to think about.
I came up with this analogy to describe guns to people that don’t know much about them.
Are you scared of a parked car? No, why not it can easily kill people, it’s loaded with a full tank of gas and everything. Oh you need a person to drive it, to kill someone.
Then why aren’t you scared to drive walk down the road or a parking lot? Oh they are safe unless someone is reckless (accident) or someone is crazy and wants to drive someone over. Both happen just not often enough to be scared to walk down the road.
Well a gun is like the same thing a gun in a holster is like a parked car completely safe, when you pull the gun out it is like driving yes accident can happen and crazy people can kill others but just like with cars accidents are far and few between even more so than car accidents just guns makes a better news story. An accident with a gun at worst kills one person accident with a car can kill a family.
“How about if we band all guns wouldn’t that fix everything?” be realistic guns have been around for hundreds of years, all that has changed with the guns is that they became safer, more accurate and reliable. Even if you took every gun from every person, it doesn’t take much to build a gun, a tube with a spring and hammer. Come on they made those hundreds of years ago. Now they can make knock off I-pods, you don’t think criminals will find a way to make a gun? Just search Zip Gun
I would hope that you vote based off facts not feelings. Guns in citizens hands make society safer.
Thank you.
LQM
Regular Member
Hr 822
Loosely quoted from a Republican on the committee hearing on HR 822. "I find it very heartening this sudden passion for state rights."
It is interesting that all the noise about what the bill will do to limit states in regards to the managing of their internal affairs is no where heard on the healthcare issue, environmental issues, immigration, or any issues where a state is basically blackmailed into taking any federal dollars or thought to be acting outside of its constitutional duties. State rights at that point is moot because we just can't have states implementing their own regulations.
So according to all the hearing members on the left side of the aisle, we are all about federalism when it comes to gun control, yet are so quick to dismiss it when it involves empowering a citizen to engage in a constitutionally protected right. I watched during the committee hearings, as a Chief of Police who served in some of the toughest cities on the East Coast makes it clear that as far as he was concerned, and because of his long career in law enforcement, he would be just fine disarming the entire populace because, and I quote, "that's what the police are for." Not to exclude the right side of the aisle, I heard all of them commend the Chief for his exemplary service, and thank 'the boys in blue' for theirs, but not a one of them mentioned already settled law absolving law enforcement of the responsibility to provide personal protection. In a nut shell, you can't sue the cops for not being there 'when the crime is being committed.' They are there to serve the public at large by enforcing law. There is supposed to be some kind of trickle down effect when there is a cop ten blocks away. I am not bashing any profession by any means, just simply noting things as I understand them
I came away from those hearings, as well as the letters I sent to my elected representatives, dismayed. What should have been a clear individual rights issue that all 535 members claim to be protecting turned into a game of political football. Im not surprised by the responses I got from Lieberman and Blumenthal, they are after all, politicians.
Loosely quoted from a Republican on the committee hearing on HR 822. "I find it very heartening this sudden passion for state rights."
It is interesting that all the noise about what the bill will do to limit states in regards to the managing of their internal affairs is no where heard on the healthcare issue, environmental issues, immigration, or any issues where a state is basically blackmailed into taking any federal dollars or thought to be acting outside of its constitutional duties. State rights at that point is moot because we just can't have states implementing their own regulations.
So according to all the hearing members on the left side of the aisle, we are all about federalism when it comes to gun control, yet are so quick to dismiss it when it involves empowering a citizen to engage in a constitutionally protected right. I watched during the committee hearings, as a Chief of Police who served in some of the toughest cities on the East Coast makes it clear that as far as he was concerned, and because of his long career in law enforcement, he would be just fine disarming the entire populace because, and I quote, "that's what the police are for." Not to exclude the right side of the aisle, I heard all of them commend the Chief for his exemplary service, and thank 'the boys in blue' for theirs, but not a one of them mentioned already settled law absolving law enforcement of the responsibility to provide personal protection. In a nut shell, you can't sue the cops for not being there 'when the crime is being committed.' They are there to serve the public at large by enforcing law. There is supposed to be some kind of trickle down effect when there is a cop ten blocks away. I am not bashing any profession by any means, just simply noting things as I understand them
I came away from those hearings, as well as the letters I sent to my elected representatives, dismayed. What should have been a clear individual rights issue that all 535 members claim to be protecting turned into a game of political football. Im not surprised by the responses I got from Lieberman and Blumenthal, they are after all, politicians.
Rich B
Regular Member
One thing to add...
States DO NOT have rights.
People do.
States DO NOT have rights.
People do.
LQM
Regular Member
State "POWERS"
Rich,
I am well aware of that. It is an argument I have been making for many years, and I have gone up against college professors who tried to make me see their light on this as well. My statement is only reflecting the conversation as it was being debated in committee. Sadly, it is also being made by our representatives as though that entity, the State, could somehow be wronged by civil rights violations.
Rich,
I am well aware of that. It is an argument I have been making for many years, and I have gone up against college professors who tried to make me see their light on this as well. My statement is only reflecting the conversation as it was being debated in committee. Sadly, it is also being made by our representatives as though that entity, the State, could somehow be wronged by civil rights violations.
Rich B
Regular Member
Skinnedknuckles
Regular Member
Senator Lieberman responds
Finally got a response from Senator Lieberman. Obviously doesn't want to say where he stands, either.
January 3, 2012
Dear Dr. *******:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for the issue of concealed carry and national reciprocity of handguns. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts on this subject.
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL). If enacted, this bill would allow a permit holder from one state to travel to another state with a concealed handgun as long as the state the individual was entering had a concealed carry law. The visiting permit holder would be required to comply with all other laws in the state that they enter, with the exception of the laws governing eligibility for, and issuance, of concealed carry permits.
At this time, H.R. 822 is currently pending consideration by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. While I am not a member of this committee, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should H.R. 822 or any related legislation comes before the full Senate during this 112th Congress. To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can click on the "Track a Bill" button at http://lieberman.senate.gov/.
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
And my response:
Dear Senator Lieberman,
Thank you for responding to my previous email concering the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act but I am concerned that you do not seem to consider this legislation important. In the past three weeks, three otherwise law-abiding visitors to New York City, acting on poor assumptions or data, have run afoul of NYC’s refusal to honor the actions of many states of the Union (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/m...ehind-bars-for-unknowingly-violating-gun-law/). While none happened to be a Connecticut resident, one of them could all too easily have been given our proximity to NYC.
Because we do not currently have protection such as would be afforded by HR 822, these citizens are facing felony charges and multi-year imprisonment for doing something they could legally do in the majority of the US. Other than the simple act of having a firearm, they were breaking no law and there has been no implication that they had any intention of doing so.
You have a long history of protecting the rights of Connecticut residents, and I hope you will be more supportive of protecting responsible gun owners like me from capricious laws that not just abridge my rights but make me a felon for the simple act of crossing a jurisdictional boundary.
Sincerely,
Finally got a response from Senator Lieberman. Obviously doesn't want to say where he stands, either.
January 3, 2012
Dear Dr. *******:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your support for the issue of concealed carry and national reciprocity of handguns. I appreciate having the benefit of your thoughts on this subject.
Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL). If enacted, this bill would allow a permit holder from one state to travel to another state with a concealed handgun as long as the state the individual was entering had a concealed carry law. The visiting permit holder would be required to comply with all other laws in the state that they enter, with the exception of the laws governing eligibility for, and issuance, of concealed carry permits.
At this time, H.R. 822 is currently pending consideration by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. While I am not a member of this committee, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should H.R. 822 or any related legislation comes before the full Senate during this 112th Congress. To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can click on the "Track a Bill" button at http://lieberman.senate.gov/.
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
And my response:
Dear Senator Lieberman,
Thank you for responding to my previous email concering the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act but I am concerned that you do not seem to consider this legislation important. In the past three weeks, three otherwise law-abiding visitors to New York City, acting on poor assumptions or data, have run afoul of NYC’s refusal to honor the actions of many states of the Union (http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/m...ehind-bars-for-unknowingly-violating-gun-law/). While none happened to be a Connecticut resident, one of them could all too easily have been given our proximity to NYC.
Because we do not currently have protection such as would be afforded by HR 822, these citizens are facing felony charges and multi-year imprisonment for doing something they could legally do in the majority of the US. Other than the simple act of having a firearm, they were breaking no law and there has been no implication that they had any intention of doing so.
You have a long history of protecting the rights of Connecticut residents, and I hope you will be more supportive of protecting responsible gun owners like me from capricious laws that not just abridge my rights but make me a felon for the simple act of crossing a jurisdictional boundary.
Sincerely,
Last edited: