HB 822 Passes Hurdles

[bkj]

The NRA says this bill will not create any federal standards for CHL. But it will open the door for them.
The anti-gun lobby is already trying http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2662224/posts

I am a very strong supporter of the second amendment, but I strongly support the whole constitution. The supporters say it will be like drivers licenses. I am unaware of any federal law requiring states to honored driver’s licenses from other states. Far more state issued licenses are not automatically honored. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, law enforcement all must be licensed in each state.

[Liberty]

Far more state issued licenses are not automatically honored. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, law enforcement all must be licensed in each state.

There is no promise in our constitution of the ability to be a doctor, lawyer etc. There is a clear undeniable phrase that guarantees us the right to not only own arms but to carry ( or bear). We can choose to be on the side of the Schummer Bloomberg gun banners or the side of the NRA. Forcing states to acknowledge the 2nd amendment is a good thing.
If it does push the issue of 10th amendment abuse into the Supreme court, then its all for the better. If that is the case it would set up the challenge to all kinds of abusive 10th amendment issues. Perhaps starting the end to all kind of abuses. Illegal herbs, Osha and EPA Regulations and most of the abusive federal mandates.

[Purplehood]

Far more state issued licenses are not automatically honored. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, law enforcement all must be licensed in each state.

There is no promise in our constitution of the ability to be a doctor, lawyer etc. There is a clear undeniable phrase that guarantees us the right to not only own arms but to carry ( or bear). We can choose to be on the side of the Schummer Bloomberg gun banners or the side of the NRA. Forcing states to acknowledge the 2nd amendment is a good thing.
If it does push the issue of 10th amendment abuse into the Supreme court, then its all for the better. If that is the case it would set up the challenge to all kinds of abusive 10th amendment issues. Perhaps starting the end to all kind of abuses. Illegal herbs, Osha and EPA Regulations and most of the abusive federal mandates.

Pray that BO does not get any further opportunities to put new people in the Supreme Court. It is perilously close now to becoming a Liberal-majority.

[texasmusic]

Anyone want my uninformed opinion?

a) States with no licensing like alaska get one so they can be reciprocal.

b) States that don't want to be reciprocal trash their CHL.

c) National registry and chl licensing.

or

d) all of the above.

Feel free to tear my theories apart. I'll read up on this some more when I have time.
edit: i'm not trying to being sarcastic here... if I'm wrong here let me have it

[Liberty]

Anyone want my uninformed opinion?

a) States with no licensing like alaska get one so they can be reciprocal.

b) States that don't want to be reciprocal trash their CHL.

c) National registry and chl licensing.

or

d) all of the above.

Feel free to tear my theories apart. I'll read up on this some more when I have time.
edit: i'm not trying to being sarcastic here... if I'm wrong here let me have it

a) They already already do. Arizona does, Places like Vermont who have constitutional carry aren't allowed to carry in another state because they don't have a CHL program, Nothing really changes from the current state of affairs

b) States that are so much against CHL carry and reciprocity don't have much recpricrocity now, Things can't get any worse in states we can't carry now .. New York Illinois and Mass. etc...

c) Where does this come from the FUD about Nationalizing Registry and Natioanl CHL licensing was nothing to do with this bill.


Being a gun owner and being on the side of the Bloomburgs Illegal mayors and against the NRA, sorta says it all.
If Bloomburg is against a gun bill, It has to ba a good thing.

[texasmusic]

a) They already already do. Arizona does, Places like Vermont who have constitutional carry aren't allowed to carry in another state because they don't have a CHL program, Nothing really changes from the current state of affairs

So we have 1 for nothing changing. Unless it causes a place like Vermont to get a CHL program, that's a step back.

b) States that are so much against CHL carry and reciprocity don't have much recpricrocity now, Things can't get any worse in states we can't carry now .. New York Illinois and Mass. etc...

2 for nothing changing... unless the states which are moderate and still have CHL now ditch it due to the force reciprocity.

c) Where does this come from the FUD about Nationalizing Registry and Natioanl CHL licensing was nothing to do with this bill.

Say vermont opens up chl program to get reciprocity... but no background check, no shooting test, good for 1000 years... Think there won't be an uproar from the rest of us? Previously if a state had a joke of a chl program just don't honor the thing. Guess what the easiest solution here is? We don't need to be laying out a red carpet for the fed's to step in on this because they will.

By this reasoning what do we actually gain? Anything?

Being a gun owner and being on the side of the Bloomburgs Illegal mayors and against the NRA, sorta says it all.
If Bloomburg is against a gun bill, It has to ba a good thing.

I don't care what bloomerburg thinks. I just call them how I see them. I won't let my "gunmetal colored glasses" prevent me from seeing that this will only force us further down the same old road.

[ELB]

I am guessing many people do not read an entire thread before launching posts. Or automatically discount any evidence that counters their belief.

But moving to new information:

Apparently the Brady folks are publicly claiming they don't have the votes to stop HR 822 in the Senate. http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=5035

Might be a "cry wolf" tactic to gen up some attention, but interesting anyway. As noted previously, a previous version of National Reciprocity did well in the Senate, and was stopped by a filibuster, not because a majority of senators were opposed to it. Further evidence that it might do very well in the Senate is that Schumer is already sweating ... err... bullets, and Lautenberg and McCarthy are already calling Obama to veto it -- which indicates that they think it could very well pass the Senate.

[Bullwhip]

If anybody thinks you can just wave this federal law and get out of jail free in NJ NYC or MD, just remember the poor guy who was on a plane that wound up staying overnight in NJ and wound up in jail when he tried to check back in the next day (with his guns).

Yeah he won, what did it cost him?

[ELB]

More panic from the other side. Are they really short, or just trying to whip up the base?

via Say Uncle

http://www.gunpoliticsny.com/?p=5105

“… Miller sees a real possibility that the Democratic-controlled Senate will approve the bill, possibly as an attachment to a piece of essential legislation, such as authorization for Defense Department appropriations. “My understanding is that our side is two votes short of enough votes to keep that from happening,”

[Wes]

I was reading up on this bill and for whatever reason decided to actually read a few things on http://www.bradycampaign.org/ after being linked there a couple of times.

are these people really serious with some of that stuff?! omg...ok, i agree it is sad when something tragic happens, and i feel sorry for the families, but these type of people seem to want nothing less than riding the streets of all firearms. its not gonna happen!!! what dont they understand about that?! and if you can not get rid of every single gun a BG might be able to get, then how can you justify making it harder for the GG to protect themselves and actually try to prevent some of these tragic events?! ahhhh! i know i am preaching to the choir here, but I had to vent somewhere. that site just makes me angry, cant believe i gave them 15 minutes of my time to read some of it.

[ELB]

The anti-gun side is presently losing on several fronts: grass roots public opinion, academic historical and crime research (e.g. meaning of 2A and effect of gun control laws) SCOTUS, national legislative, and most state legislative fronts. Their only allies are the MSM, the President, some lower federal courts, a few state legislatures, and big city mayors (e.g. Nanny Bloomers).

Among their allies even some of the press are starting to at least stay away from the issue, the President is scared to take it on publicly (hence "under the radar" stunts like Gunwalker), there is at least a decent chance some of the lower federal courts can be beaten into submission to the Constitution by future SCOTUS decisions, and even the Illinois legislature has some significant pro-gun folks (just not enough yet). Their only effective allies are Bloomers and his MAIG, which bear close watching.


Hence the astro-turf outfits like Brady, NGVAC, and so forth are in a major panic because they are losing both politically and financially, and none of the actual facts support their position so their only possible response is to shriek absurd lies at the top of their lungs.

They would receive a huge victory, however, if Obama is permitted a second term and Republicans cannot capture the Senate. This would give Obama the chance to appoint two or three new SCOTUS justices, as well as continue to appoint lower federal judges and continue to abuse executive power thru the DOJ and other agencies.

It doesn't matter which Republican gets the nomination, any of them will be better than a second Obama term. Vole accordingly.

[smoothoperator]

Does this override the nonresident threats or does the license have to be from your home state?

[RoyGBiv]

Well... I see two locked threads referring to the Senate version of this bill, introduced yesterday.
I guess the TXCHLForum.com powers that be want the Senate version discussion in this thread, so, I'll post the link to the NRAILA article..

http://nraila.org/legislation/federal-l ... enate.aspx

Worth noting that the Senate version was sponsored by two Senators with a "D".
"The times, they are a' changing"

Today, March 13, U.S. Senators Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) introduced S. 2188, the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012.” The bill is the Senate companion to H. R. 822, which was approved by the U. S. House last November by a vote of 272-154.

S. 2188, like H.R. 822, would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed handgun in any other state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state's laws governing where concealed handguns may be carried would apply within its borders.

ETA: YES... this "D" bill is less than the "Constitutional Carry" bill re-introduced (after being shot down in 2009) by Thune and Vitter. Do we want to press for a possibly achievable "Reciprocity" bill or a DOA (in the Senate) Constitutional Carry bill? Of course I'd prefer Constitutional Carry... but...

[AEA]

Worth noting that the Senate version was sponsored by two Senators with a "D".

Code: Select all

 Obama said: "We are working under the radar".

[Keith B]

Worth noting that the Senate version was sponsored by two Senators with a "D".

Code: Select all

 Obama said: "We are working under the radar".

Not all Democrats are anti-gun. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon is a Democrat and he is a big gun enthusiast. He was instrumental in getting the concealed handgun law and their version of MPA passed in 2005 when he was Lt. Governor. He has frequently attended NRA and Ducks Unlimited functions as both a member and guest speaker.