National Carry Bill

Per foxnews.com, the US House approved the National Right to Carry Bill

ok, but the current political makeup of the Senate is: 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans and two Independents (Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders, both of whom caucus with the Democrats)

sooo, that may be as far as it goes.

we shall see.

Here's a link for CBS version of reporting, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57326335-503544/house-passes-concealed-carry-gun-bill/

It's time to see if Reid is as "pro-gun" as he claims.

I think we all know the answer to that.

Worse, since he has already stated that this is his last term, he has no need for our votes anymore, no reason to do the right thing as there will be no payoff for him.
Betraying us to curry favor with his Progressive masters will probably get him a lucrative sinecure after he retires.

In case anyone was unaware, "Progressive" is a synonym for socialist/communist.
If your kids are getting a "Progressive" education, they are being indoctrinated to accept and embrace the socialist agenda, including "Gun Control".

Be Careful What You Wish For...

Agreed!

I look at this with a lot of trepidation. This could be a bad thing after the Anti's get to amend the hell out of it. Or "interpret" the meaning of different clauses. Just look at the 2A - many interpret it as hunting rifles only, etc. The net result could be a national CCW database in a few years!

In Nevada our election process begins very early, Feb. 4th as I recall the latest "Presidential Caucus" date.

Vote carefully.

Do you believe that the feds don't already have the information that you fear that they will get via the new bill?

This is very good advice!

Yeah, we should have a vote/no vote thread here on the HTF at that time. Just reminding folks how people behaved in the legislature last time. William Horne comes to mind and a few other shady characters. A lot of BS happened with the pro gun bills....

I buy all my ammo on-line with a credit card. I assume somebody in the supply chain transfers all my info to the Feds every time. Retailer, CC Company, Shipper (ORM-D on box), etc. So YES, I think they have the info and apparently I’m not that worried, I’m doing nothing wrong.

I’m more concerned about the Feds (Dems) amending the bill later via a Defense Spending Bill, etc.
Example: How in the hell did we get income tax reform, which had nothing to do with health care, in the health care bill? It was only one paragraph out of 2000 pages and affects every business in the US.

How to recall state officials


Recall: Nevada

Who: Every public officer in the state

Number: 25% of the votes cast in the last election for the official being recalled

Time: 60 days



If Harry does not champion the Bill we should rally the 2nd Amendment soldiers to sign the petition.

We could use this to strengthen the resolve as well: Obama Oushing Shooters Off Public Lands

That's the danger with this legislation.

The Senate can pull all kinds of secret back room bullshit to Fuck up the bill before they send it to Obama. The more Government bullshit and restrictions that are in the bill the more likely he is to sign it, because, he wants to satisfy the pro-gun community during his reelection campaign.

Be very careful what you wish for. This could be a very dangerous step for gun owners.

JMO

Not how it works.

If they try that, it has to go back to a conference committee, where the House will kill it or remove whatever offending language the Senate may try to include.

THIS!

Even the MV-86 no more machine guns fuckover required a new vote on the amendment.
The vote was manipulated, held at the last possible moment, done as a "Voice Vote", a motion for a recorded vote was denied, etc, but a new vote WAS required!

We need to ensure this does not get delayed until the last minute to prevent any hanky-panky.

Fighting for rights is never wrong, but giving the federal government powers it now does not currently have is a bad move at any time. The power resides in the People until it is given to the government. If this bill passes then it will be another blow against states rights and by extension Individual rights..

Fortunately, this bill does not do that.

There are no state's rights at issue here.

The federal government is trying to FORCE all states to recognize all other state's CCW permits. How is that NOT a states rights issue?

All states that currently issue CCW to it's own residents. Non issuing states are exempt from what I've read.

Would you agree that each state's driver's license should be valid nationally? It's the same issue at hand here as far as I'm concerned.

Where, in the 2nd amendment, does it give the states the right to create a permitting structure at all?

All the feds are doing is requiring each state's permitting schemes to be recognized by every other. They could do this using the FF&C clause of the Constitution, in this particular case they chose the far easier to deal with interstate commerce clause, but either way it's a perfectly legitimate exercise of authority granted to the federal government in the Constitution, not the states.

I would agree –– it's a very similar issue.

The FF&C clause in the Constitution grants clear authority to Congress to regulate interstate recognition of licenses and judicial acts between the states.

Look at is this way. The 2nd amendment is being trampled on now by many states who only let their residents who have an in state carry permit carry in their state. So, the bill is designed to essentially stop that to some degree. So, it is not the federal government trampling on state's rights, it's the states trampling on our 2nd amendment rights. The 2nd amendment should trump states' rights.

Are you smoking Fucking Crack?

You want the .Gov to give you states' rights?

In this particular case, the federal government is doing nothing more than enforcing rights we already have. The states won't do it, so the feds will, and it's within their authority under the Constitution.

Fed Gov. Org. cannot "GIVE" what is already affirmed under the U.S. constitution!
They CAN affirm it at the state level, the same as other enumerated rights, such as free speech and voting.
I might agree the full faith and credit clause would be a better venue for this, but I'll take what I can get in this lifetime.

Your an FFL Holder and you support this Bullshit?

It is nothing more than a National CCW Registration Scheme. If it does pass and it becomes law, we will all pay the price later on down the road.

How so you may ask? Well, just wait for lawsuits and injunctions... Then what are we going to do while they suspend the "Federal Law?"

This is bad legislation at a VERY bad time.

Be VERY careful when you wish for Angels today... for tomorrow those Angels may become Devils.

You can "Zumbo" me now if you so choose.

Do you have no appreciation for ANY of the FOPA 86 provisions?

For an example, we should refuse the Fed. "Safe Passage" provision of FOPA-86 as it somehow infringes states rights?
Or it is improper from some other perspective?

The FOPA of 1986 was used (abused) as a vehicle to screw NFA enthusiast, but the rest of it was the culmination of a decade long battle to reign in ATF and several states obnoxious practices.
Looking up some of the bad acts of ATF (Now BATFE) reads like accounts of Stalins Russia, with Americans literally being shot in their beds in response to rumors of contraband.
It used to be incredibly dangerous to cross state lines with legal firearms, FOPA-86 pretty well took care of that.
FOPA-86 was a good start on reigning in some of the worst abuse from state and Fed. anti-RKBA zealots.
It's pathetic that we ever have to depend on the Fed. for such things, but some states are just too dominated by wealthy anti-RKBA zealot organizations for any other means to succeed.

We have to ensure that THIS bill is not manipulated with last minute "Amendments", riders, unrelated crap or posturing, via our ACTIVE participation.
This means expressing our concerns to OUR Fed. legislators of BOTH houses.

Look at the amendments that were proposed:

Amendment No. 1—Rep. Woodall (R-GA): This amendment would protect the rights of states that already have reciprocal agreements in place for the concealed carry of firearms to continue enforcing those preexisting agreements.

Amendment No. 2—Rep. McCarthy (D-NY): This amendment would specify that the legislation can only go into effect in states that have passed legislation enacting the bill.

Amendment No. 3—Rep. Hastings (D-FL): This amendment would exempt states from issuing a carry permit on the basis of state reciprocity which do not require individuals to apply for and complete a carry permit application in person.

Amendment No. 4—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a state to create a comprehensive database to contain all permits and licenses issued by the state for carrying a concealed weapon and make this comprehensive database available to law enforcement officers from all states 24 hours a day.

Amendment No. 5—Rep. Conyers (D-MI): This amendment would effectively gut the bill by “preserving” state laws with respect to eligibility for concealed-carry.

Amendment No. 6—Rep. Johnson (D-GA): This amendment would require the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a state to be subject to “any law of the state that limits the eligibility to possess or carry a concealed handgun to persons who have received firearm safety training that includes a live-fire exercise.’’

Amendment No. 7—Rep. Cohen (D-TN): This amendment would exempt from the bill any state law requiring a person to be at least 21 years of age to possess or carry a concealed handgun.

Amendment No. 8—Rep. Jackson Lee (D-TX): This amendment would require a person intending to carry or possess a concealed handgun in a state to inform that state’s law enforcement of their intentions at least 24 hours prior.

Amendment No. 9—Rep. Cicilline (D-RI): This amendment would limit the bill from taking effect in a state until the State Attorney General, head of the State police, and the Secretary of State have jointly certified that the other state’s carry laws are substantially similar to its own licensing or permitting requirements.

Amendment No. 10—Rep. Reichert (R-WA): This amendment would require a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study on the ability of state and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearms permits.


If this doesn't prove how completely moronic the zombies in D.C. are nothing will. I don't want these idiots to have anything to do with my rights. What they're trying to do right now MAY be good but, I don't trust for a second that they won't fuck it up at some point in the future.

You do realize all but Amendment 10 failed, most by significant margins, right?

You too?

This bill does nothing to create a "National CCW Registration Scheme".

It *only* requires full reciprocity. That's it. Nothing more.

It is carefully constructed to be within SCOTUS precedent, both from Heller and all the interstate commerce cases. It should survive any legal challenge, and if it doesn't? We're exactly where we were before it passed until SCOTUS rules on it.

This is nothing but a good thing.

Reid is not a state official, he's a federal official and cannot be recalled.

Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office

Wow, what a professional response. Obviously, the crack smoking is going on by this poser "ishoot2live", I mean poster. What does your response even mean? Of course, it means nothing, and that is why like a 10th grader you feel the need to embellish with profanity––the language of the ignorant, who think if they yell loud enough they will win. Feeble

Yes, thanks for the correction.

Oh I realize completely that they failed. But I also realize they TRIED to include this crap. That means they're going to try again and again and again. Just like they always do. Once again, I really don't want the federal government to get involved in this. I don't see a single good thing coming from that.

There will always be senators and congressmen we disagree with. It's the nature of the political world.

As far as federal government's involvement with gun rights? That ship sailed, you need to go back to 1934 if you want to fix that. This is a good bill, and it increases my ability to exercise my rights.

If it is passed at 'face value' and remains that way it would be fantasic in my case. I live approx. 7 miles from Cali and hike, ski, camp, etc. there all the time. Not having to understand 100's of esoteric and confusing Cali gun laws -> Priceless.

Exactly.

You still need to understand Cali gun laws.... They just have to accept your permit.
Really the bill is only 3 pages long, its worth a read

They're going to try either way. There are very determined people whose purpose in life is to limit access to firearms. This bill might rile them up some, but failure of this bill wouldn't make them change their focus. We'll always be fighting. If this bill passes and the antis try to subvert it, we'll fight that fight when it comes.

And they could try to write a bill with any one of those amendment in it, by itself, and try to pass it, today. McCarthy tried precisely that, earlier this year. This bill doesn't give them more opportunities to do it.

Both of you guys do realize that these "laws" can be added to any bill, right? It does not need to be a bill on national carry or anything gun related. It can be a balanced budget amendment, temporary budget, or anything else. The critters are sneaky and will get their words in any chance they can!

Exactly ^This^

That's why in my previous post I said...

"Be VERY careful when you wish for Angels today... for tomorrow those Angels may become Devils."

That's how the Domestic Violence Amendment slipped through by Lautenberg.

It was attached to another bill at the last minute.

You realize all the amendments were killed right?

If the Senate adds amendments, it has to go *BACK* to the house, where the amendment will either be removed in conference committee, or the bill will be killed.

This isn't 1997.

What's your point? There's no magic bullet for this. Squelching HR822 wouldn't change the way bills are passed. I don't need a civics lesson, thanks.

Sorry Girlfriend... I speak my piece (profanity or not).

Does my profanity offend you, Mr. dbailey223?

I "smoke Crack?"

I'm a "poser?"

Is your response a personal attack towards me?

Check yourself.

Yes, profanity offends me. Just speaking my "piece" too.

I wouldn't send anyone for CCW or any other training to a person who responds to a post like you did.

A "personal attack"? Not anymore that you accusing me of being on crack because of my post.

"Check yoursel"? Does that mean you're threatening me? So, it's OK for you to throw out accusations at me, and to speak your "piece", but it isn't OK for others to do the same to you or you threaten them? Nice, very nice. I forgot, professional too.

Anyone here who goes to training with this peach or thinks about it should really think anout it. Judgment etc does not appear to be high on his list.

1. If profanity offends you, don't read the post (or anything else on the Internet for that matter.)

2. Go ahead, speak your "piece." No one is stopping you.

3. You never sent anyone to me for training during the five years you have been on this board. Why start now?

4. Yes. Calling me a "poser" is a personal attack.

5. I never accused you of being on Crack. I ASKED if you were on Crack. That is not an accusation, it is a question the last time I checked.

6. Check yourself is not a threat. It was merely a suggestion to reflect on what you said.

7. Once again, it wasn't a threat. It was a suggestion.

8. Calling me a "peach," and suggesting to people in a public forum to really "think about" coming to me for training when you know nothing about me IS a personal attack towards me and my business (yea, that's REAL professional).

9. "Judgement etc." is not high on my list? Yet another personal attack.

Lighten up Francis, before we both get sent to the Pit.

The problem is that once you let the Federal government do anything, they could then set the requirements for CCW. Those requirements could be the same ones that apply in the District of Columbia where it is essentially impossible to possess a firearm. Not that it stops criminals at all. It is a feel good law with extremely severe repercussions. And with recent precedents The more restrictive states will say no CCW - like Mass, Ohio, and California. Then there is the special case of AZ and Delaware where you need no permit.

Does anyone think that the government -Any Government - will say that you do not need a ccw license?

While the Second amendment should apply as the Constitution is supposed to be the highest law of the land, but for the last 60 years it has been largely ignored and conveniently misread. Most, if not all progressives like the restrictions that have been passed - no where more so than in Washington DC. The security guard that
case Blew it- and had the chance to radically change the laws in Washington DC and around the country.
Thanks
Tony

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.