H.R. 822 being heard tomorrow 8/13/11 - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31

Thread: H.R. 822 being heard tomorrow 8/13/11

  1. On this issue, Federal Legislation forcing the states to recognize each other's permits is not a good idea. This explicitly defines that concealed carry may be regulated by the Federal government. Once this admission is in place other regulation is sure to follow.

    It would also be a significant violation of the tenth amendment to the constitution as it would be a significant centralization of power to the federal government, the very thing we should be trying to prevent.

    Rather it should be argued that States which forbid all public carrying of arms, either by statute or through "may issue" permitting systems which are in fact "non-issue" is a violation of the now incorporated, second amendment.

    The next step should be to get rid of the permitting process entirely. This should be done using the courts and not legislation. Again anything that can be given through legislation can be taken away. Court decisions tend to be more binding and restrict governmental power. (An aspect of Judicial Review which has been largely absent in the last 100 years).

    We need to be progressing toward the concept that laws forbiding the carrying of arms by a free people, in public are UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    "Get this through your head! We're not fighting to have everybody think the way we do, we're fighting so that people can think whatever they want! Even if they don't agree with us!"--Stalker, GI JOE #39

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    You could still use a FL permit to carry in PA...just not in NJ.

    It's possible that a result of this is that states AZ, FL, UT, etc might decide they no longer have to issue to non-residents...but I doubt they would want to give up that revenue source.
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    There's no way those gun-friendly states would do away with CC,
    That's not really what I said....

  4. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    SE Florida
    Posts
    1,880
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    That's not really what I said....
    I understand that, but after reading the bill it seems that the only way around it would be for a state to stop issuing permits all together, resident and non-resident alike. To only stop issuing non-res permits would have no effect on the bill, which says that any state that issues CC permits (the bill doesn't differentiate between res/non-res) would be required to recognize the permits from other states.
    (Insert random tough-guy quote here)
    "See my gun?? Aren't you impressed?" - Anonymous sheepdog
    The hardware is the same, but the software is vastly different.

  5. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Providence Ranch View Post
    It's called the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Part of Homeland Defense. It is very succinct. Basically it grants any peace officer with off duty carry privileges the right to carry in all 50 states. I said reciprocity above, but that's not exactly true. It goes farther than that by granting LEOs exemption from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. There are certain requirements, but very reasonable. Check it out. If you are LEO or retired LEO, you may have more carry rights than you knew.

    H.R. 218 Final Text

    Enjoy!
    I am not and I dislike the fact that LEOs get extra privileges that we all should be able to enjoy. I have nothing against LEOs per se, by the way.

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    2nd Amemdment rules, we already have the right to carry in every state, nationwide constitutional carry, this bill will die with the likes of Harry, and the loser pres we have.

  7. #26
    Well said, doc. Just what I was trying to say.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    I am not and I dislike the fact that LEOs get extra privileges that we all should be able to enjoy. I have nothing against LEOs per se, by the way.
    I agree, I think LEOSA is a bunch of crap. If cops need to run around all fifty states armed with guns, even though they are not on duty, then the rest of us should have the right to do so as well. Creating a "super-citizen" class is garbage, I don't care if it is LEO's, military, or federal government workers.

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by B2Tall View Post
    There's no way those gun-friendly states would do away with CC, but other not-so-friendly states like NJ or Hawaii might very well do so. They hardly issue any permits in the first place so they don't have much to lose. I find it hard to believe that the "anti" states would simply do a 180 and allow people to CC just because of this law.
    I don't hold much hope for H.R. 822 to pass, but it wouldn't change much anyway. At least not for the Nazi Republic of Joisey. They've allowed false information like, "hollow points are armor piercing", and "pistol grips on a long gun make it an assault rifle" to perpetuate in their legislation. They (NJ) are as likely to go "non-issue" than to accept out-of-state permits. Kalifornia issues a lot of permits, but one would really have to be extra cautious being from out of state. Leave your Winchester Talons and Speer Gold Dots at home. New York, Maine, and Oregon would likely accept the National Right to Carry, but CT, DE, MD, and MA - no way! The end result would still be spotty regions that are off limits just like now.
    "The 2nd amendment was never intended to allow private citizens to 'keep and bear arms'. If it had, there would have been wording such as 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'." -- Ken Konecki on Usenet, on 27 Jul 1992

  10. #29
    Seems a bit inconsistent to want as little federal government intrusion as possible and then want it to overrule state's rights. Not only overrule, but, in may ways, preempt states just as state governments have preempted local regulation. Do we want the federal government essentially asserting the it "rules the field" with regard to CC? Not sure I am liking that. I prefer pressure on states to establish reciprocity agreements.
    Si vis pacem para bellum

  11. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by the dark View Post
    Seems a bit inconsistent to want as little federal government intrusion as possible and then want it to overrule state's rights. Not only overrule, but, in may ways, preempt states just as state governments have preempted local regulation. Do we want the federal government essentially asserting the it "rules the field" with regard to CC? Not sure I am liking that. I prefer pressure on states to establish reciprocity agreements.
    Didn't we have a small war over states rights a few years back? I don't want the FEDs in anything. I want the states to adhere to the constitution. PERIOD.

    Psalm 82:3-5

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast