Action needed on H.R. 822, National Right-To-Carry bill - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Action needed on H.R. 822, National Right-To-Carry bill (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:54:35 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think I'm going to start lobbying my Congressman and Senators to write a bill eliminating national reciprocity for CDLs, and to let those of us in states that don't license people to drive under a certain age refuse to recognize DLs issued by other states to younger folks.

Don't forget marraige licenses. Move to a new state? Go go fill out the proper paperwork and pay the man. Walla! now married in your new state.

Actually, that might get a lot of support––-"It wasn't adultery, honey!! I was in Texas! We ain't married in Texas!"

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:55:07 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:
There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit which is the most widely recipricated. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:55:33 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

I'm not sure what language we can post the text in that you would understand. The bill has been posted in it's entirety. If you choose not to read it, and keep blathering about what you think it says, I don't know what else anyone can say.

Please tell us exactly how it's "useless". Please cite the exact section where we "give up" anything that hasn't already been "given up". Please explain how a bill that explicitly provides for reciprocity winds up giving us "almost nothing in return".

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:58:36 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

I'd be able to travel more freely on the east coast.

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:59:20 AM EDT

[#5]

Here, I'll help:

HR 822 IH

112th კონგრესი

1 სესია

ჰ რ 822

შეცვალოს დასახელება 18, United States კოდექსი, რათა ეროვნული სტანდარტების შესაბამისად, რომელიც nonresidents სახელმწიფოს შეიძლება ჰქონდეს დამალული იარაღი სახელმწიფო.

სახლში წარმომადგენლობები

18 თებერვალი, 2011

ბატონი STEARNS (თავისთვის და ბატონი SHULER) გააცნო შემდეგ კანონპროექტი, რომელიც ეხებოდა კომიტეტის სასამართლო

კანონპროექტი

შეცვალოს დასახელება 18, United States კოდექსი, რათა ეროვნული სტანდარტების შესაბამისად, რომელიც nonresidents სახელმწიფოს შეიძლება ჰქონდეს დამალული იარაღი სახელმწიფო.

იქნება ეს ამოქმედდეს მიერ სენატისა და წარმომადგენლობითი პალატის ამერიკის შეერთებული შტატების კონგრესის შეიკრიბნენ,

ნაწილი 1. მოკლე დასახელება.

ეს აქტი შეიძლება იყოს მითითებული, ისევე როგორც "ეროვნული უფლება განახორციელონ-ნაცვალგების აქტი 2011".

წ. 2. შედეგები.

კონგრესის აღმოაჩენს შემდეგი:

(1) მეორე დამატების შეტანის კონსტიტუციის შეერთებული შტატები იცავს ფუნდამენტურ უფლებას ინდივიდუალური შეინარჩუნოს და ჰქონდეს იარაღი, მათ შორის მიზნით ინდივიდუალური თავდაცვის.

(2) საქართველოს უზენაესი სასამართლო ამერიკის შეერთებული შტატების აღიარა ამ უფლების შემთხვევაში საოლქო კოლუმბიის წინააღმდეგ Heller, და იმ შემთხვევაში, მაკდონალდსი v. ქალაქი ჩიკაგო, აღიარა, რომ უფლება დაცულია მიმართ სახელმწიფო დარღვევის მიერ მეთოთხმეტე დამატების შეტანის კონსტიტუციის შეერთებული შტატები.

(3) კონგრესი უფლებამოსილია გაიაროს კანონმდებლობის დაცვას დარღვევის ყველა უფლება დაცულია ქვეშ მეთოთხმეტე შესწორების კონსტიტუციის შეერთებული შტატები.

(4) უფლება ჰქონდეს იარაღის მოიცავს უფლება იარაღის შეეხება თავდაცვის და დაცვის სხვა.

(5) კონგრესის მოქმედი კანონმდებლობით ეროვნული უფლებამოსილების ფარგლებში ტარების გარკვეულ იარაღის კვალიფიციური აქტიური და გადამდგარი სამართალდამცავებს.

(6) ორმოცდარვა States უზრუნველყოფს მიერ წესდების გაცემის კერძო პირებისათვის ნებართვების განახორციელოს ფარული ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღი, ან დაუშვას ტარების გარკვეულ ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღი ამისთვის კანონიერი მიზნებისათვის გარეშე ნებართვის მიღების შესახებ.

(7) დიდი უმრავლესობა, რომლებიც განხორციელების უფლება იარაღი საკუთარი შტატები და სხვა სახელმწიფოები არ დადასტურდება, იქნება კანონმორჩილი და ასეთი ტარების უკვე აჩვენა, რათა დანაშაულის თავიდან აცილების ან დანაშაულის წინააღმდეგობის სარგებელი ლიცენზიანტის და სხვა .

(8) კონგრესი მიიჩნევს, რომ თავიდან აცილების კანონიერ ტარება იარაღის პირებს, რომლებიც მიემგზავრებიან გარეთ საკუთარი სახელმწიფო ხელს უშლის საკონსტიტუციო უფლება სახელმწიფოთაშორისი მგზავრობის, და ამწვავებს სახელმწიფოთაშორისი კომერციის.

(9), მათ შორის, ამ აქტის უფლებების დაცვას, პრივილეგიები და იმუნიტეტები გარანტირებული მოქალაქეს შეერთებული შტატების მიერ მეთოთხმეტე შესწორების კონსტიტუციის შეერთებული შტატები.

(10) კონგრესი, ამიტომ, უნდა უზრუნველყოს ეროვნული აღიარება, სახელმწიფოებში, რომ საკითხის საკუთარი მოქალაქეების ლიცენზიების და ნებართვების განახორციელოს ფარული handguns, სხვა სახელმწიფოს ნებართვა ან ლიცენზია განახორციელოს ფარული handguns.

წ. 3. ნაცვალგების FOR ტარების გარკვეული ფარული ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღი.

(ა) გენერალური თავი 44 დასახელება 18, United States კოდექსის არის შესწორებული ჩასმა შემდეგ სექციაში 926C შემდეგი:

"წ. 926D. ნაცვალგების იმ ტარების გარკვეული ფარული იარაღი

(ა) მიუხედავად ნებისმიერი დებულების კანონის ნებისმიერი სახელმწიფო ან პოლიტიკური ქვეგანყოფილების მისი დაკავშირებული ტარების ან სატრანსპორტო ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღის, პირი, რომელიც არ არის აკრძალული ფედერალური კანონის შენახვა, ტრანსპორტირება, გადაზიდვის, ან მიღების ავტომატური ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღით, და რომელიც მიმდინარეობს საქართველოს მთავრობის მიერ გაცემული ფოტოგრაფიული საიდენტიფიკაციო დოკუმენტი და მოქმედი ლიცენზიის ან ნებართვის რომელიც გამოიცემა კანონის შესაბამისად სახელმწიფო და რომელიც იძლევა პირის განახორციელოს ფარული იარაღი, შეუძლია აწარმოოს ფარული handgun (გარდა ავტომატური ან დესტრუქციული მოწყობილობა) რომელიც გაიგზავნება ან ტრანსპორტირება სახელმწიფოთაშორისი ან უცხო კომერცია, ნებისმიერი სახელმწიფო, გარდა სახელმწიფო საცხოვრებელი პირი, რომ -

(1) აქვს დებულება, რომელიც საშუალებას აძლევს მოსახლეობას სახელმწიფო მოპოვება ლიცენზიების და ნებართვების განახორციელოს ფარული ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღის ან

'(2) არ კრძალავს ტარების გარკვეულ იარაღის მოსახლეობას სახელმწიფო კანონიერი მიზნებისათვის.

(ბ) პირი ახორციელებს გარკვეულ handgun ამ განყოფილებაში დასაშვებია განახორციელოს handgun ექვემდებარება იგივე პირობებით ან შეზღუდვები, რომლებიც ეხება მოსახლეობას სახელმწიფო, რომელსაც აქვს ნებართვა მიერ გაცემული სახელმწიფო ან სხვაგვარად კანონიერად მიეცეთ ამის უფლება მიერ სახელმწიფო.

(გ) სახელმწიფო, რომელიც საშუალებას აძლევს გამცემი ორგანოს ლიცენზიების და ნებართვების განახორციელოს ფარული იარაღი დააწესოს შეზღუდვები ტარება იარაღის ინდივიდუალური მფლობელებს ასეთი ლიცენზიების და ნებართვების, ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღით უნდა მოხდეს მიხედვით ამავე ვადებში მიერ შეუზღუდავი ლიცენზია ან ნებართვა გაიცემა მხოლოდ იმ სახელმწიფოს რეზიდენტად.

(დ) არაფერი ამ სექციაში უნდა იქნეს გაგებული, რომ preempt რომელიმე დებულება სახელმწიფო სამართლის მიმართ გაცემის ლიცენზიების და ნებართვების განახორციელოს ფარული ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღი. ".

(ბ) ადამიანური რესურსების მართვის სპეციალისტი დამატების შეტანის-მაგიდა მონაკვეთისაგან ასეთი თავი შესწორებული ჩასმა შემდეგ პუნქტში, რომელიც ეხება განყოფილებაში 926C შემდეგი:

'926D. ნაცვალგების იმ ტარების გარკვეული ფარული ცეცხლსასროლი იარაღი. ".

(გ) Severability-მიუხედავად ნებისმიერი სხვა დებულების ამ აქტის, თუ რომელიმე დებულება ამ განყოფილებაში ან ნებისმიერი შესწორების მიერ ამ განყოფილებაში ან გამოყენების ასეთი უზრუნველყოფა ან შესწორება ნებისმიერ პირს, ან გარემოება ტარდება იქნება არაკონსტიტუციურად, ამ მონაკვეთზე და ცვლილებების ამ განყოფილებაში და გამოყენების ასეთი უზრუნველყოფა ან შესწორება სხვა პირებს ან გარემოებების არ უნდა იყოს დაზარალებული ამით.

(დ) ძალაში შესვლის თარიღი, ცვლილებების ამ განყოფილებაში ძალაში შევა 90 დღის შემდეგ თარიღი ძალაში შესვლამდე, ამ აქტში.

Now I have translated the bill into Georgian. Now people can resume arguing about it without knowing what it says.

Posted: 9/30/2011 7:59:47 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think I'm going to start lobbying my Congressman and Senators to write a bill eliminating national reciprocity for CDLs, and to let those of us in states that don't license people to drive under a certain age refuse to recognize DLs issued by other states to younger folks.

Don't forget marraige licenses. Move to a new state? Go go fill out the proper paperwork and pay the man. Walla! now married in your new state.

So... you two think it's either a federal ban or federal permission? Not much room for freedom in the world you live in, is there?

States choose to recognise marriage, driving, and (in many states including mine) CCW licenses from all states. No feds required. Or maybe you should just go ahead and lobby for a federal law to allow you to brush your teeth in the morning, after all who would want a ban on brushing teeth?

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:02:40 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

ummm i could legally protect my family in NJ,MD,NY instead of being legally obliged to hold my cheeks apart while being reaped

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:04:58 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I do not want anymore federal regulation.

I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia.

+1

This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind.

Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW?

This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough.

Chris

No, it does nothing of the sort. It forces states to recoginize CCW's from other states via "full faith and credit". That's it. Nothing bad can come from this bill.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:05:16 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I do not want anymore federal regulation.

I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia.

+1

This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind.

Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW?

This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough.

Chris

Exactly. Say goodbye to shall issue and welcome in again "may" issue. Also, look at the wait times for NFA and FFL applications. Do we really want to wait 6 months for a carry permit?

You guys are thinking about Boxer's "Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011", which is a different bill.

And allowing a bill to pass that gives the feds authority to regulate one aspect of CHLs in individual states...

It will allow things like Boxer's bill to gain precedence. If its OK to say one state has to accept another's permit, whats to say they can't say one state's requirements has to be a minimum for another?

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:06:44 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I do not want anymore federal regulation.

I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia.

+1

This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind.

Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW?

This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough.

Chris

I dont understand why people are complaining. Its a bill saying your permit is good all over the country like a drivers license.

I hope it passes. Im on the Ny border and its a real pain in the ass. Hell from our old house there was no way to get to it without going through NY ... Thats not a good enough reason to get a westchester permit tho

Do you want your right to carry a firearm to be regarded in the same manner as a DL? I sure as hell don't.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:09:20 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing.

And who has a bill wanting the feds to set a bare minimum for CHL standards? Its the logical conclusion if we go down this road.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:09:57 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We NEED this!

I reside in communist NJ which is a shall issue state, which means that they have CCW on the books but they SHALL not issue them to anybody that is not a Judge or anything like that.

Further more they dont recognize any other states CCW.

Passing this act would create a loop hole and allow me to use my already acquired FL CCW license to carry and feel safe n my own my own state (which I feel I need to carry in my home state a lot more then I do in PA )

No.

Sorry.

Fail.

Work within your state to change your laws. It might not be instant, but it is the best way. Actually put some effort forth in restoring your own rights instead of risking everyone else's rights for a quick fix.

Simple question... Does boxer's bill need this one to succeed? Hint: The answer is no.

Your argument is full of fail.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:11:08 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
No thanks. The feds need not be involved in CC.

Here's what I think.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:12:20 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing.

And who has a bill wanting the feds to set a bare minimum for CHL standards? Its the logical conclusion if we go down this road.

That would require another bill, and would be totally independent of this. And can happen without it.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:13:58 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We NEED this!

I reside in communist NJ which is a shall issue state, which means that they have CCW on the books but they SHALL not issue them to anybody that is not a Judge or anything like that.

Further more they dont recognize any other states CCW.

Passing this act would create a loop hole and allow me to use my already acquired FL CCW license to carry and feel safe n my own my own state (which I feel I need to carry in my home state a lot more then I do in PA )

No.

Sorry.

Fail.

Work within your state to change your laws. It might not be instant, but it is the best way. Actually put some effort forth in restoring your own rights instead of risking everyone else's rights for a quick fix.

Simple question... Does boxer's bill need this one to succeed? Hint: The answer is no.

Your argument is full of fail.

No but it would sure help. "See, we forced some states to require folks from another, without any training requirements,to carry in their state. Boxer is only trying to help fix that little problem those Republicans made". Bet that would sell nicely in CA, NY, etc with large, urban, democrat populations.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:15:21 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

This bill would make states lose their right to set requirements for which other state permits they accept. People will be able to get a permit in a state with no training requirements and then their home state will be forced to accept it as legal. Not a good thing.

And who has a bill wanting the feds to set a bare minimum for CHL standards? Its the logical conclusion if we go down this road.

That would require another bill, and would be totally independent of this. And can happen without it.

See above post.Its only icing on the cake for Boxer. Neither bill requires the other. If we beg the feds to get involved, it won't stop at "full faith and credit".

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:15:50 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:
There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

I'd be able to travel more freely on the east coast.

The problem I see is that once a bill is passed it makes each subsequent bill easier to pass. Here in MN they started the seatbelt law with it being a warning if you were stopped for something else. Then it was an add on ticket if pulled over for something unrelated. Now they can pull you over just for the no seat belt offense alone. They would have never been able to jump straight to the law the way it is now but with baby steps it was not hard to pass.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:18:48 AM EDT

[#18]

I read the bill in its entirety, several times. All it does is allow someone with a CCW from his home state to carry in states that allow CCW with some form of license, but not from that particular state. It won't help anyone who can't get a license in his home state. It won't help anyone who doesn't frequently travel out of state. It won't help anyone from a state like MO (sorry FL, you don't have the most recognized license, MO does. We just don't offer OOS licenses.) that already has wide recognition. It would help a few people who live near the border of a restrictive state and cross the border frequently.

Why does MO have more recognition than some other states? We relentlessly lobby our AG to work out reciprocity agreements with other states. Ten years ago, we had no CCW at all, and neither did most states. Due to hard work, we do now. In another ten years, how much more will we (nationally) have? We are making so much progress on a state level, we have almost nothing to gain from HR822 that we're not already on track to get without it.

The problem is that to get HR822 we have to allow the feds the authority to override state CCW law. For those of us in free states, that is a bad deal. Maybe if you live in a rural NY county that issues CCW and want to carry in NJ, you think this bill is helpful. It may be, for you and a few others, for a while. But once the law is established and upheld in court, that sets the precedent for further overriding of state CCW law. We know the anti-gunners have thought about this possibility because they have already proposed bills with exactly that effect.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:18:50 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that––

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.

Continue on to the bill...

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You do understand that this law could be AMENDED. See, once in place, it is inevitable that it would be modified. The more CHANCES you give the government to exert control over any aspect of life, the more they will take.

This opens too many doors for "COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS" if something happens, especially if it is a CCW holder and it is against someone federal.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:19:10 AM EDT

[#20]

For all the naysayers.

This bill makes your ccw just like a drivers licensed, able to use it in all the states (except ones that dont issue ccw like Illinois).

So go and read it, not giving nothing up. It is forcing the states to acknowledge other states ccw.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:22:24 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

For all the naysayers.

This bill makes your ccw just like a drivers licensed, able to use it in all the states (except ones that dont issue ccw like Illinois).

So go and read it, not giving nothing up. It is forcing the states to acknowledge other states ccw.

But didn't you hear? After this they will just ban CCW all together. They could never ban CCW unless this bill was passsed.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:23:25 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

For all the naysayers.

This bill makes your ccw just like a drivers licensed, able to use it in all the states (except ones that dont issue ccw like Illinois).

So go and read it, not giving nothing up. It is forcing the states to acknowledge other states ccw.

Do you really want your right to carry a firearm regarded in the same manner as a drivers license? I find the comparison revolting.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:25:56 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I do not want anymore federal regulation.

I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia.

+1

This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind.

Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW?

This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough.

Chris

No, it does nothing of the sort. It forces states to recoginize CCW's from other states via "full faith and credit". That's it. Nothing bad can come from this bill.

This has nothing to do with "full faith and credit." Nothing at all.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:29:13 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
For all the naysayers.

This bill makes your ccw just like a drivers licensed, able to use it in all the states (except ones that dont issue ccw like Illinois).

So go and read it, not giving nothing up. It is forcing the states to acknowledge other states ccw.

No, it doesn't. Driver's licenses are recognized by the states at the state level, not the federal level.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:29:33 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We NEED this!

I reside in communist NJ which is a shall issue state, which means that they have CCW on the books but they SHALL not issue them to anybody that is not a Judge or anything like that.

Further more they dont recognize any other states CCW.

Passing this act would create a loop hole and allow me to use my already acquired FL CCW license to carry and feel safe n my own my own state (which I feel I need to carry in my home state a lot more then I do in PA )

No.

Sorry.

Fail.

Work within your state to change your laws. It might not be instant, but it is the best way. Actually put some effort forth in restoring your own rights instead of risking everyone else's rights for a quick fix.

Simple question... Does boxer's bill need this one to succeed? Hint: The answer is no.

Your argument is full of fail.

No but it would sure help. "See, we forced some states to require folks from another, without any training requirements,to carry in their state. Boxer is only trying to help fix that little problem those Republicans made". Bet that would sell nicely in CA, NY, etc with large, urban, democrat populations.

And it would sell nicely without it to the same people. No downside.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:30:36 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that––

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.

Continue on to the bill...

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You do understand that this law could be AMENDED. See, once in place, it is inevitable that it would be modified. The more CHANCES you give the government to exert control over any aspect of life, the more they will take.

This opens too many doors for "COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS" if something happens, especially if it is a CCW holder and it is against someone federal.

It can't be amended after it's passed, except by another bill.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:31:41 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I do not want anymore federal regulation.

I would hope the states would honor the 2nd, but I also know we do not line in Utopia.

+1

This bill is opening Pandora's box. Not a musical box. The bad kind.

Is this the bill where Feinstein and Boxer want the Feds to dictate and/or create the minimum (read 'hard to get') qualifications for getting this National CCW?

This bill might be one of those that bills that looks good on its face, but turns into something that's not so good in the end.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Right now, it's not too hard to acquire one in many States, but in places like Cali and NY, you have to show a valid reason for wanting one and 'I like guns' or 'I want to defend myself' aren't good enough.

Chris

No, it does nothing of the sort. It forces states to recoginize CCW's from other states via "full faith and credit". That's it. Nothing bad can come from this bill.

This has nothing to do with "full faith and credit." Nothing at all.

Que? It's the means by which it's constitutional, along with the 2nd.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:34:05 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

And it would sell nicely without it to the same people. No downside.

Except there would then be a legal precedent of the feds mandating standards for CHLs. Do you see this bill taking us more in the direction of AZ or WI in terms of CHL law? Which type of law do you feel we should focus our attention/time/money on?

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:40:35 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

A BILL

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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.

(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

‘Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that––

‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.

‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.

‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.

Continue on to the bill...

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

Yet. And there won't be, as long as the Republicans own the House. And when they don't, and the democrats pass restrictions on the federal government's new jurisdiction, I'm making a rant thread on here calling all you bastards out. Because it'll be your fault for empowering them to make new restrictions possible nationwide.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:41:44 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit which is the most widely recipricated. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

Perhaps, but if you already live in a "FREE" State, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO TRAVEL TO A COMMUNIST STATE????? Whether you can carry or not, it's already proven that they don't support it, so WHY GO? The bill gives the Feds WAY too much power, over something they need to stay the fuck out of. I PRAY this bill fails.

Posted: 9/30/2011 8:49:50 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:
There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit which is the most widely recipricated. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

Perhaps, but if you already live in a "FREE" State, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO TRAVEL TO A COMMUNIST STATE????? Whether you can carry or not, it's already proven that they don't support it, so WHY GO? The bill gives the Feds WAY too much power, over something they need to stay the fuck out of. I PRAY this bill fails.

I have a family. That family consists of going to New York sometimes. I do not like it, but sometimes you have to do things that you do not want to do.

Congratulations if you can avoid going to a state with fucked up laws.

Posted: 9/30/2011 9:02:10 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit which is the most widely recipricated. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

Perhaps, but if you already live in a "FREE" State, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO TRAVEL TO A COMMUNIST STATE????? Whether you can carry or not, it's already proven that they don't support it, so WHY GO? The bill gives the Feds WAY too much power, over something they need to stay the fuck out of. I PRAY this bill fails.

I have a family. That family consists of going to New York sometimes. I do not like it, but sometimes you have to do things that you do not want to do.

Congratulations if you can avoid going to a state with fucked up laws.

Don't waste your time Klinc. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - it's what conservatives are good at.

Posted: 9/30/2011 9:07:51 AM EDT

[#33]

Nope, not gonna support this. The last thing we need is another law defining the ways it is ok to infringe our right to keep and bear arms.

Any law that requires any sort of license or registration pertaining to guns is contrary to the Second Amendment.

The first four statements are great, to wit:

"The Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms,
including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right
in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of
McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected
against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.

(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect
against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others."

From there it goes downhill fast, and puts into federal law the assertion that licensed carry and machinegun prohibitions are in keeping with the Second Amendment. This would make it substantially more difficult for the Supreme Court to strike down such laws as unconstitutional.

We have Heller and McDonald, which set a precedent for further challenges to laws that infringe our right. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot with a law like this.

Posted: 9/30/2011 10:22:23 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You know, finding the text of this bill was not hard, and I suggest that the naysayers actually take a minute and read it:

There is nothing in there, nothing at all, that will apply federal control or oversight to how any state issues permits.

You shutup with your facts and all...

THIS BILL IS FUCKING USELESS! WE GIVE UP EVERYTHING AND GAIN ALMOST NOTHING IN RETURN!

Not really, but maybe make it bigger font then I will agree with you.

I thought maybe you didn't see it. What is the benefit again? How does it help anybody?

Let's see. I have a Florida permit. I can carry in 35 states. With this bill it would add 14 more states that I can carry in (one of those states I cannot even take a handgun into the state, period no ifs, ands, or buts). That is just for my Florida permit which is the most widely recipricated. A great many other poeple across the US would beneifit even more than I would.

btw, that font was smaller. you're not doing it right.

Perhaps, but if you already live in a "FREE" State, then WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU WANT TO TRAVEL TO A COMMUNIST STATE????? Whether you can carry or not, it's already proven that they don't support it, so WHY GO? The bill gives the Feds WAY too much power, over something they need to stay the fuck out of. I PRAY this bill fails.

I have a family. That family consists of going to New York sometimes. I do not like it, but sometimes you have to do things that you do not want to do.

Congratulations if you can avoid going to a state with fucked up laws.

Ouch, that sucks.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Action needed on H.R. 822, National Right-To-Carry bill (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us