Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/16/2011 4:50:36 PM EDT
H.R. 822 was just passed today giving concealed carry permit holders the right to carry in any state that issues permits to carry! So South Carolina can kiss my ass as I carry there!

I don't know how Federal bills work and of there is a start date or if it goes active immediately when passed.

Here is an announcement :

U.S. House Passes NRA-backed
National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
 
The U.S. House of Representatives has passed an important self-defense measure that would enable millions of Right-to-Carry permit holders across the country to carry concealed firearms while traveling outside their home states. H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, passed by a majority bipartisan vote of 272 to 154. All amendments aimed to weaken or damage the integrity of this bill were defeated.

“NRA has made the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act a priority because it enhances the fundamental right to self-defense guaranteed to all law-abiding people,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “People are not immune from crime when they cross state lines. That is why it is vital for them to be able to defend themselves and their loved ones should the need arise.”

H.R. 822, introduced in the U.S. House by Representatives Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), allows any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes.

This bill does not affect existing state laws. State laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within each state’s borders. H.R. 822 does not create a federal licensing system or impose federal standards on state permits; rather, it requires the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

As of today, 49 states have laws in place that permit their citizens to carry a concealed firearm in some form. Only Illinois and the District of Columbia deny its residents the right to carry concealed firearms outside their homes or businesses for self-defense.

“We are grateful for the support of Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Majority Whip McCarthy, Judiciary Chairman Smith and primary sponsors Congressmen Stearns and Shuler for their steadfast support of H.R. 822. Thanks to the persistence of millions of American gun owners and NRA members, Congress has moved one step closer to improving crucial self-defense laws in this country,” concluded Cox.

-nra-

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
 
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 4:54:13 PM EDT
Go back to civics class, still has to pass the Senate AND either get signed by the President or they have to override his veto.
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 4:58:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Go back to civics class, still has to pass the Senate AND either get signed by the President or they have to override his veto.


Ohhhh I bet the senate will do everything to ensure 0 never sees it on his desk.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:10:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Go back to civics class, still has to pass the Senate AND either get signed by the President or they have to override his veto.


What he said.

Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:21:39 PM EDT
Prince Harry will never let it come up for a vote. It was not his idea so it is a bad idea.
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:34:57 PM EDT
OP, must have thick skin around these parts.
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:38:04 PM EDT
You mean 57 states don't you?
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 5:49:31 PM EDT
Yep. South Carolina can kiss my ass!!
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 6:13:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/16/2011 6:15:30 PM EDT by New4John]
Link Posted: 11/16/2011 6:19:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TisforTennessee:
You mean 57 states don't you?


+1

Link Posted: 11/17/2011 3:15:24 AM EDT
Fingers crossed!
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 3:49:01 AM EDT
Bill will never see the light of day in the Senate. And, SC can kiss my ass, just for general principles!!
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 6:39:52 AM EDT
First I was like , then I was like


Link Posted: 11/17/2011 6:43:17 AM EDT
Whats stopping you now, concealed means concealed.
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 7:02:25 AM EDT
Here is what will happen when it hits the senate floor
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 8:15:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Whats stopping you now, concealed means concealed.


Some of us prefer to remain law abiding.

Az
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 8:42:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AzB:
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Whats stopping you now, concealed means concealed.


Some of us prefer to remain law abiding.

Az


I've never been convicted of breaking any laws. What are you getting at?
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 1:58:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/17/2011 1:59:07 PM EDT by mhode]
Does anybody here really think Harry will allow this to be voted on much less Barry signing it into law? SC can kiss my ass too...
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 2:31:50 PM EDT
somebody jump the gun?
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 4:27:06 PM EDT
I did. I saw that the bill had passed, but forgot about the Senate. Who knows, a lot of gun bills that benefit us have been passed in the last 2-3 years, so you never know. All this bill would do is allow you to carry anywhere that offers a carry permit. 48 states worth for us. You still have to abide by their local and state gun laws, so it really only opens up the number of states you can carry in and does nothing to change laws for the state regarding CCW regulations.



Originally Posted By Killjoy321:
somebody jump the gun?


Link Posted: 11/17/2011 6:09:17 PM EDT

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 6:12:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 11/17/2011 11:54:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AzB:
Originally Posted By jeffco55:
Whats stopping you now, concealed means concealed.


Some of us prefer to remain law abiding.

Az


Some of us are allowed to carry in all states already......
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 3:27:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


yup..... listen to this man.
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 3:53:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 4:06:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.


The second amendment is a statement of something the federal government cannot do. How does this restriction grant them any powers in this area?
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 4:16:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2011 6:10:36 AM EDT by LARRYG]
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.


The second amendment is a statement of something the federal government cannot do. How does this restriction grant them any powers in this area?


Haven't been keeping up, have you?

The Second Amendment has been incorporated like every other amendment in the BOR.

Besides, I never bought the bullshit that it only applied against the Feds. Only one amendment actually mentions "congress", the rest don't.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That does not say "shall not be infringed only by the Feds but the states can". It says "shall not be infringed", period. It does not say "Congress shall make no............." like the First. The First in the ONLY one that says that and, by yur reasoning, the states should be able to trample all over our freedom of speech rights. Your reasoning basically makes the Constitution meaningless if it only applies to the Feds.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution makes this a Federal issue and removes it from the bullshit "state's rights" crap.

George Wallace was rambling on about "state's rights" when he stood in the doorway at UA.

Why should some citizens of this country enjoy less protection under the BOR than others?

The states have violated people's rights a hell of a lot more than the Feds.

There are legitimate state's rights issue, but the BOR is not one of them.
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 4:55:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/18/2011 4:55:46 AM EDT by jeffco55]
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.


The second amendment is a statement of something the federal government cannot do. How does this restriction grant them any powers in this area?


Haven't been keeping up, have you?

The Second Amendment has not been incorporated like every other amendment in the BOR.

Besides, I never bought the bullshit that it only applied against the Feds. Only one amendment actually mentions "congress", the rest don't.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That does not say "shall not be infringed only by the Feds but the states can". It says "shall not be infringed", period. It does not say "Congress shall make no............." like the First. The First in the ONLY one that says that and, by yur reasoning, the states should be able to trample all over our freedom of speech rights. Your reasoning basically makes the Constitution meaningless if it only applies to the Feds.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution makes this a Federal issue and removes it from the bullshit "state's rights" crap.

George Wallace was rambling on about "state's rights" when he stood in the doorway at UA.

Why should some citizens of this country enjoy less protection under the BOR than others?

The states have violated people's rights a hell of a lot more than the Feds.

There are legitimate state's rights issue, but the BOR is not one of them.


+1

The federal government makes other states recognize our drivers license, and or marriage license, now its their responsibility to make sure that they recognize our CCWs. And this isn't a states rights argument because the states have no right to interfere with the first 9 amendments. In this instance we have the federal government actually operating inside their scope, its a fresh change of pace.
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 4:59:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.


The second amendment is a statement of something the federal government cannot do. How does this restriction grant them any powers in this area?


Haven't been keeping up, have you?

The Second Amendment has not been incorporated like every other amendment in the BOR.

Besides, I never bought the bullshit that it only applied against the Feds. Only one amendment actually mentions "congress", the rest don't.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That does not say "shall not be infringed only by the Feds but the states can". It says "shall not be infringed", period. It does not say "Congress shall make no............." like the First. The First in the ONLY one that says that and, by yur reasoning, the states should be able to trample all over our freedom of speech rights. Your reasoning basically makes the Constitution meaningless if it only applies to the Feds.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution makes this a Federal issue and removes it from the bullshit "state's rights" crap.

George Wallace was rambling on about "state's rights" when he stood in the doorway at UA.

Why should some citizens of this country enjoy less protection under the BOR than others?

The states have violated people's rights a hell of a lot more than the Feds.

There are legitimate state's rights issue, but the BOR is not one of them.

Larry, it HAS been incorporated against the states, in _McDonald v. Chicago_. What hasn't been clearly decided yet is whether the right includes bearing arms in public and whether a license can be required to do so, or what types of arms are protected. Obviously, anti-gun judges and governments are trying to claim it only protects the right to keep them in the home and that licenses can still be required, and it only protects a limited subset of firearms currently available.
Link Posted: 11/18/2011 6:11:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:
Originally Posted By LARRYG:
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat:

If the states wanted to have reciprocity they already could.

Never...and I mean never...ask the federal government to help sort out issues between the states. Every time they 'help'...liberty dies.

The NRA is dead wrong here.

It's just like incorporation...I would have rather had the states win that one.


Sorry, the Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, not a state's right issue.

Yeah, the states do a real good job of observing people's rights.

Like you said, if the states WANTED to, they could, but apparently they don't want to, so fuck 'em.

If the states could get away with ignoring the rest of the BOR, they would do that as well.

It is not the NRA that is dead wrong on this issue.


The second amendment is a statement of something the federal government cannot do. How does this restriction grant them any powers in this area?


Haven't been keeping up, have you?

The Second Amendment has not been incorporated like every other amendment in the BOR.

Besides, I never bought the bullshit that it only applied against the Feds. Only one amendment actually mentions "congress", the rest don't.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


That does not say "shall not be infringed only by the Feds but the states can". It says "shall not be infringed", period. It does not say "Congress shall make no............." like the First. The First in the ONLY one that says that and, by yur reasoning, the states should be able to trample all over our freedom of speech rights. Your reasoning basically makes the Constitution meaningless if it only applies to the Feds.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution makes this a Federal issue and removes it from the bullshit "state's rights" crap.

George Wallace was rambling on about "state's rights" when he stood in the doorway at UA.

Why should some citizens of this country enjoy less protection under the BOR than others?

The states have violated people's rights a hell of a lot more than the Feds.

There are legitimate state's rights issue, but the BOR is not one of them.

Larry, it HAS been incorporated against the states, in _McDonald v. Chicago_. What hasn't been clearly decided yet is whether the right includes bearing arms in public and whether a license can be required to do so, or what types of arms are protected. Obviously, anti-gun judges and governments are trying to claim it only protects the right to keep them in the home and that licenses can still be required, and it only protects a limited subset of firearms currently available.


Actually, the "not been incorporated" was a booboo. The "not" was not supposed to be there.
Link Posted: 11/21/2011 8:07:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LoneWolf545:


Larry, it HAS been incorporated against the states, in _McDonald v. Chicago_. What hasn't been clearly decided yet is whether the right includes bearing arms in public and whether a license can be required to do so, or what types of arms are protected. Obviously, anti-gun judges and governments are trying to claim it only protects the right to keep them in the home and that licenses can still be required, and it only protects a limited subset of firearms currently available.


Lonewolf,

Thanks for pointing out some of the more obvious reasons incorporation may not be 'all that and a bag of chips' for the 2nd Amendment.

Cause it isn't like other stuff covered in the BOR hasn't been thoroughly smashticated by the feds to our eternal suffering.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For instance...yeah, that suckers got some TEETH on him these days...right?
Top Top