Support H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

[Redbaron007]

So, change the bill. Make it so that anyone with a CWP/CHP/CCW from any state is granted reciprocity in all states.

^^^ Simple.

Why are the bill-writers making this overly-complex, again? Are they afraid that if they allow things to be represented as simple as they are then somehow their jobs may become non-essential?

Hmm...

Hence, a problem with the feds being involved. Changing may not be that easy. Who knows what goes on behind the scenes; it could be these particular states congressmen may have lobbied very hard for this. So that those who were sponsoring the bill could get it passed with the 'may issues' states. It's called politics.

 

[since9]

So that those who were sponsoring the bill could get it passed with the 'may issues' states.

That's exactly it, Redbaron007. If it forced all states to honor concealed carry permits issued in another state, it would be trampling on a state's self-acclaimed right to refuse issue.

I, however, view that self-acclamation "right" as un-Constitutional. Therefore, I have no problems with a bill telling states they have to honor permits issued by other states.

 

[Redbaron007]

That's exactly it, Redbaron007. If it forced all states to honor concealed carry permits issued in another state, it would be trampling on a state's self-acclaimed right to refuse issue.

I, however, view that self-acclamation "right" as un-Constitutional. Therefore, I have no problems with a bill telling states they have to honor permits issued by other states.

The key to your statement is 'If'. Those states that have 'may issue' could flip back to no issue, then again, they may join the 'shall issue'. It's a gamble. I believe the states working it out has better odds of reciprocity in the long run. Then, it will have to work its way through the courts to see if it is unconstitutional.

Here is a couple of images that are interesting:

1986

2011

 

[Daylen]

That map is not quite true. In AL it is still may issue and it was may issue back in 86'. The sheriffs do issue as opposed to the may not issue states. Also, as far as Right to carry, MS has always had OC as a right. When I was a kid there was an old guy who frequented the gas station in town and always had a sidearm; he was not a LEO, but a farmer or something of that sort. Also, there have never been laws outlawing OC. Main point though is MS had a Right to carry in 86' and AL is unchanged. I'm not sure how much I trust that map for Right to carry. Its probably dead on for Shall issue CC license, but that's two very different things.

 

[xd shooter]

Here's what "support" of HR 822 means...

Just today, Republicans helped pass an amendment that orders the Feds to investigate the “safety” of mail-in CCW permits from states like Florida, Utah and New Hampshire.

If you possess a NH, FL or UT permit, the Feds are going to investigate if these permits are “safe.”

So-called “pro-gun” Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.”

And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.

The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.

While the institutional gun lobby has put its full support behind H.R. 822, gun owners just cannot afford for them to play poker with our gun rights.

Who knows what other kind of crap may be added onto this bill, in the name of "safety" of course.

 

[Daylen]

Here's what "support" of HR 822 means...



Who knows what other kind of crap may be added onto this bill, in the name of "safety" of course.

Hey, no whining its FOR THE CHILDREN!

 

[MAC702]

Quoted by XD Shooter: "And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners."

I'm not sure where you quoted this from, but are you even remotely aware of Harry Reid's votes and leadership on gun issues? I am NOT a fan of his socialism, but there is no denying that he is a friend of gun owners. You could not have a better friend in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

 

[92FS]

[video=youtube;aaFcVzah26A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaFcVzah26A[/video]

heres the link we need 150 signatures in order to be publicly searchable on WhiteHouse.gov. then the goal is five thousand. The White House plans to respond to the petition when it crosses the 5,000 signature threshold http://wh.gov/g82

We have 1960 signatures to go please sign if you havent already. This is what we are up against. THE LINK TO SUPPORT H.R822 is in the description bar in the video.

 

[mrjam2jab]

The key to your statement is 'If'. Those states that have 'may issue' could flip back to no issue, then again, they may join the 'shall issue'. It's a gamble. I believe the states working it out has better odds of reciprocity in the long run.

I don't. Many of the states that require training will not recip with states that do not require training...

 

[Daylen]

hmm... it might be too late to safely oppose this bill...

 

[Redbaron007]

I don't. Many of the states that require training will not recip with states that do not require training...

Then, 'if' this passes, what keeps these states from revoking their CCW laws based upon the fed regualtion now? Then the whole state gets screwed.

 

[kcgunfan]

Then, 'if' this passes, what keeps these states from revoking their CCW laws based upon the fed regualtion now? Then the whole state gets screwed.

if that took place in a vacuum, you might be correct. Sure they could attempt to revoked concealed carry laws in their state, but they would then be answerable to the voters, and with the awakening of 2A rights supporters, that's going to be a difficult thing to vote for and stay elected.

 

[Redbaron007]

if that took place in a vacuum, you might be correct. Sure they could attempt to revoked concealed carry laws in their state, but they would then be answerable to the voters, and with the awakening of 2A rights supporters, that's going to be a difficult thing to vote for and stay elected.

Actually, they would sell it to the public, who sometimes isn't the most educated on the issues, as this is to protect our state from these folks who have no training coming into our state, walking around with no training on handling a weapon. Now, how many soccer moms would be on the politicians phone/email?

Will it happen? That's the $64,000 question. The Brady bunch would pull out all stops to help ensure this would be the message. Just saying.

Plus, the Washington politicians are already doing their best to add to it; some supposing to help it, some trying to make sure it doesn't pass. Again, another reason why I want my state to handle it, not 100 senators.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Then, 'if' this passes, what keeps these states from revoking their CCW laws based upon the fed regualtion now? Then the whole state gets screwed.

I think there are a lot more states that require training than those that don't....are you saying the ones that do require might repeal the laws?...and give up that revenue?

 

[Redbaron007]

I think there are a lot more states that require training than those that don't....are you saying the ones that do require might repeal the laws?...and give up that revenue?

It might come down to that.....that's the point....It would be better to work with the states than those in the FEDs congress. With the house and senate involved, you have those states that are not real gun friendly, having more control over those who are gun friendly.

Too many people want immediate satisfaction through this bill; which it may not make it through the process without being altered. The states have come a long way, even since 2000; let’s let them keep working at it, than have a bunch of bureaucrats outside of the state making mandates.

Still, tooo much politics in Washington versus the states congresses.

 

[rushcreek2]

If this HR 822 passes - Obama will not sign it. It simply isn't going to happen.

Any federal restrictions/requirements established for this "good faith & credit" facimile will result in a bounce-back to the issuing states. Puts us right where we are now. Each state authorizes CCW IN THAT STATE. Reciprocity is a free-will act.

I would LOVE to see Il, CA, HI, NJ, NY CT, and a few other states have to accept CCW's. I believe it would be a catalyst for forcing them to enact their own "shall issue" laws.

Frankly, Scarlet - IRDGAD what such jurisdictions do. I will avoid spending my $$$ in those states until such time as they come aboard.

 

[wrightme]

I think there are a lot more states that require training than those that don't....are you saying the ones that do require might repeal the laws?...and give up that revenue?

What revenue?


Unless the STATE conducts the training, it is the instructor who makes the 'revenue,' not the state.

 

[Daylen]

What revenue?


Unless the STATE conducts the training, it is the instructor who makes the 'revenue,' not the state.

The revenue that is the cause of AL to be effectively a shall issue state; from the issuance of permits?

 

[mrjam2jab]

The revenue that is the cause of AL to be effectively a shall issue state; from the issuance of permits?

Exactly.

 

[wrightme]

The revenue that is the cause of AL to be effectively a shall issue state; from the issuance of permits?

The specific mentioned was the training requirements that would be repealed...... That has nothing to do with revenue from issuance of permits. If revenue from issuance of permits was the source, that is what should have been mentioned.

I think there are a lot more states that require training than those that don't....are you saying the ones that do require might repeal the laws?...and give up that revenue?

If you want to talk of revenue, that is different than what I was responding to.
Given his post, I assume he was speaking of revenue from the training. But, maybe HE can clarify HIS meaning.

Exactly.

So, it is the permit revenue you were speaking of? What does the training have to do with that? Just an impetus for a state to deny issuance of permits to avoid having to accept permits from states without training?
If they truly desire control, loss of revenue will not be much of an obstacle.