National Reciprocity - It Begins

[Papi4baby]

Realistically this bill won't make it through the Senate this term in a form that will become law. The ship sailed in September. Right now this is all work and optics for the election. The NRA pushed it, so the NRA will keep pushing for the vote. This whole thing is now in the category of "Red Meat for the Voters".

Next year, if Obama loses. Maybe. And Romney doesn't get all weepy gun-controlly on us.

Hahahaha.

He's a Masshole. Look at Brown.

North east republicans are not conservative enough.

 

[mrjam2jab]

there will be a Rule Hearing today at 5pm

 

[jpk1md]

Hahahaha.

He's a Masshole. Look at Brown.

North east republicans are not conservative enough.

That sounds funny coming from a serf of the state of Cuba on the Chesapeake

 

[awptickes]

there will be a Rule Hearing today at 5pm

If they ever get done with the Woburn, MA post office dedication bill...

EDIT: Whoops, wrong channel. lol.

 

[swinokur]

From GOA

House Vote Coming Soon on CCW Reciprocity Bill



Monday, 14 November 2011 14:32

Urgent Alert

The House of Representatives is expected to take up concealed carry reciprocity legislation tomorrow (Tuesday, Nov. 15). H.R. 822, sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), will allow many people who possess a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in other states as well.

While well-intentioned, there are several concerns with this legislation. In an effort to address these issues, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced separate legislation (H.R. 2900), which has the support of GOA.

Please read on to learn more about specific problems with H.R. 822 (the bill coming to the floor tomorrow) and the differences between it and H.R. 2900.

And then, it is vitally important for all gun owners to contact their Representatives and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 2900.

ACTION: Urge your Representative to help fix H.R. 822 and to cosponsor the Broun legislation.

Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is “too pro-gun.”

Separate legislation H.R. 2900—supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)—would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.

Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry

Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry—where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff’s office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.

In recent years, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model. Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and Texas passed a “constitutional carry lite” law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don’t like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.

About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

Contact your Representative to send a pre-writtin message.

Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in “May Issue” States

H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one’s residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e., California, Maryland, and Massachusetts), it’s nearly impossible for residents to get a permit.

Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state. This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive “may issue” states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts “teeth” into that ruling.

Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms “have been shipped in interstate commerce,” the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the “commerce” the Founder’s envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to “regulate virtually anything – [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.”

The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Respecting the Constitution

Any federal legislation that imposes demands on the states must be scrutinized carefully by the language of the Constitution. At this point, a cynic might correctly point out that Congress passes bills on a weekly basis that go beyond what the Constitution allows. But we must be especially careful, as people who work towards federalism and constitutional government, not to fall into the trap of the end justifying the means.

H.R. 822 would certainly benefit many Americans, although that number represents only a small fraction of all gun owners. But the bill has several deep flaws that could be fixed by Rep. Broun’s legislation.

ACTION: Contact your Representative and ask that he or she urge the leaders of the House to amend H.R. 822 to fix its serious concerns. The pre-written letter also asks your Rep. to cosponsor the Broun legislation.
​

​

 

[jmira]

anyone else listening to this crap?

 

[press1280]

Realistically this bill won't make it through the Senate this term in a form that will become law. The ship sailed in September. Right now this is all work and optics for the election. The NRA pushed it, so the NRA will keep pushing for the vote. This whole thing is now in the category of "Red Meat for the Voters".

Next year, if Obama loses. Maybe. And Romney doesn't get all weepy gun-controlly on us.

Is that because the votes aren't there because of Brown, or something else?

 

[Patrick]

Simple politics. Once you push past September everything occurs according to election rules. The HR is being pushed in the House by the leadership...that never bodes well. In this case I think it signaled that the leadership figured getting anything through the Senate was too hard, but they wanted the optics anyway. Keep in mind this Senate has barely passed anything this term. Anything. They still won't even consider any of the budgets or many of the spending bills put forth by the House. This means there is almost nothing that they can "stick" reciprocity to. It's an unusual year.

It's not over by any means. There is still a must-sign bill or two out there, but leadership has been stopping most amendments after the crapstorm of social-policy riders attached to the first continuing resolution in the session - 500+ amendments all to shape America in little ways convenient to the sponsors. Everything from PBS funding to abortion to beach replenishment...all got five minutes of floor debate (2.5 minutes each side - that's Democracy!). It was a freak show. Since then, bills have been under strict discipline: amendments emerge from committees, not from the floor. There have been exceptions, obviously.


There was/is surprising push-back in the Senate on a couple of issues from friendly people, and as usual, none of them are the things GOA or the internet were concerned with. More about the practical implementation. The degeneration of this thread does not mirror the real issues, one of which is that some members wanted the bill to implement rules exactly like those their home state implements permits. As in...the bill would require of everyoneexactly the same training standards, background check requirements, etc. that their state required. It got beat back, but it's an example of what is to come.

I've mentioned it before and will remind again: our biggest challenge - other than a strong SCOTUS challenge - will be from A-rated pro-gun politicians. State AGs, Governors, County Sheriffs and State Legislators have been parsing out a fundamental right in exchange for votes for a long time. It gets them donations and support. Laws and court decisions that take that away are not going to be met with joy. Some of the sponsors of HR. 822 take a risk when they do this - they are removing power from all politicians everywhere, federal and local. That is not welcome.

Want proof?

Check out Gray's case against Colorado. The NRA A-rated AG has all but declared the Second Amendment a dead letter because it is something he wants to evaluate and parse himself. He actually signed onto the Heller and McDonald briefs arguing the right is fundamental...then argued exactly the opposite when his ability to restrict the right was challenged. Still A-rated, though.


I am a supporter of this bill and my information is a few weeks out of date. Maybe they are pushing now because they suddenly have the path through the Senate. That would be nice. That said, supporting this bill does not mean the Congress (or any elected body in any state) is suddenly our friend. We'll take the help where we can get it, but we cannot look the other way, either.

 

[Recoil45]

That nonsense sent out by GOA just convinced me not to renew my membership with them. It has been a long time coming and that was the final straw. The cost of my GOA renewal will be sent to SAF in addition to my usual contribution to them.

 

[ezliving]

HR822 vote is scheduled for tomorrow in The HoR.

http://www.capwiz.com/nra/issues/alert/?alertid=55111516

 

[Patrick]

That nonsense sent out by GOA just convinced me not to renew my membership with them. It has been a long time coming and that was the final straw. The cost of my GOA renewal will be sent to SAF in addition to my usual contribution to them.

Despite the puffing of chests, the differences between the two bills (in terms of how they are enacted and implemented) are minimal. Each involved the federal forcing something on the states. HR 2900 actually involved more federal overreach than HR 822. The biggest issue I have with HR 2900 right now is that if enacted it would have made a case at the Supreme Court much harder to get considered.

I do see a future for federal legislation post-SCOTUS. I think we are probably looking at national standards, however low or high they might be. I am not saying I like it, just saying it is bound to happen. Congress abhors a vacuum and federal carry law is non-existent. People on the Internet may weep uncontrollably, but the federal will extend their reach and the courts will back them up (to a point). I'd rather we manage the outcome than cry over something we ignored.

No matter what happens to HR 822 (or 2900), they have temporarily set the bar in most gun owner's minds as to the maximum we will accept from Uncle Sam in the way of management. Laws that try to enact more restrictions than 822 are going to be met with disdain.

I think that has value.

 

[awptickes]

Can someone break down and explain the Amendments?

I'm concerned with Amendment 1, 2, 3, and 8.

 

[toobukume]

sweet

 

[Patrick]

2:43:30 P.M. H. Res. 463 Considered as unfinished business. H. Res. 463 — "Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 822) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State."

H. Res 463 is the "carrying" motion for consideration of 822. It suspends certain rules to lessen the impact of amendments and delay tactics. House is done for the day. So maybe another day soon.

Still werkin'...

 

[hdgglock19]

House to vote on concealed weapons permit bill

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20111116/US.Congress.Concealed.Weapons/

HOPE is in the HOUSE

 

[Norton]

Threads merged.

 

[Patrick]

Asking Obama to issue a veto threat is encouraging. Not something you'd do if defeat were a slam dunk. Still hopeful...

 

[Patrick]

Can someone break down and explain the Amendments?

I'm concerned with Amendment 1, 2, 3, and 8.

They won't pass. Even #1 looks "OK" on its face, but it is an open door to instant bans on guns between unfriendly states. It would let the NY/MD elite create a reciprocity agreement between each other that supersedes the law and conveniently bans reciprocity between each other, under some conditions, at the same time. It would be chipping at the block, but they would be chips all the same.

The House will pass this. But the Senate is the hard part.

 

[krucam]

Asking Obama to issue a veto threat is encouraging. Not something you'd do if defeat were a slam dunk. Still hopeful...

Schumer, McCarthy, Lautenberg...a veritable Who's-Who for the Anti's. Schumer's comment of "It's like a bad dream." did nothing but put a smile on my face.

Fuggem. If this Reciprocity bill (which has maybe a 1/3 chance of being signed/passed) gets their panties in a wad like this, I can't wait for the next year or two...

 

[drwalther]

If nothing the worth of flustering the anti-citizen-rights crew has merit :}