H.R. 822 is still troublesome - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: H.R. 822 is still troublesome

  1. Not true

    Quote Originally Posted by spdracr39:236241
    They can try to pass additional restrictions anyway this bill in no way affects that one way or the other.
    Not true, this legislation opens up ccw laws to federal control that is not possible now.

    The federal government government cannot pass any laws dictating how states handle ccw within the state. Once a law is passed regulating interstate, they can get involved. The law is a Pandora's box, if it passes it will at best be a source of fighting for years to come. At worst, I don't want to sound paranoids but this is worst case, this could mean the end of broadly available ccw.

    I seldom disagree with the NRA's position on firearms legislation, but in this case they are being very short sighted.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkX View Post
    Not true, this legislation opens up ccw laws to federal control that is not possible now.

    ....
    Please give specific, articulable examples from the TEXT of the bill.

    -Doc

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc:236428
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkX View Post
    Not true, this legislation opens up ccw laws to federal control that is not possible now.

    ....
    Please give specific, articulable examples from the TEXT of the bill.

    -Doc
    Like I said it is not the current text.

    I am sure the states with more restrictive requirements to get a permit/license will not want to recognize the less restrictive states.

    A specific example is in some states the age for a permit is 18 and other states it is 21. The states with the 21 age will pressure congress to make an age 21 requirement on all states.

    A clear example of where this has already happened, the federal government has no authority to set DUI standards, but because of highway funding laws, they have been able to set a required .08 BAC limit. (BTW: I believe the standard should be a much lower BAC , but this should be set at the state level not the federal level).

    I'm on my phone so it is difficult to look up the quote, but LBJ said something to the affect of, don't judge a law on what it should do in the hands of honest men, but what it can do when abused by dishonest men.

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New Hampshire
    Posts
    134
    Many post state that once the federal government gets involved, bills are automatically bad especially when dealing with firearms. (My summary)

    What are your thoughts on FOPA?

  6. Quote Originally Posted by imrambi:236482
    What are your thoughts on FOPA?
    There are parts that are good, especially in regards to interstate transportation.
    But as a general rule most of the laws in FOPA, even the parts I agree with should be done at the state level, not the federal.

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc View Post
    Please give specific, articulable examples from the TEXT of the bill.

    -Doc
    I can't, my tinfoil hat and CCW badge are interfering with my ability to hold rational discusion.

  8. #17

    A Better Bill -- HR2900

    What i don't understand is why the NRA is pushing H.R. 822, a bill that requires a person to have a state-issued license and which does nothing for anyone in states like Illinois when H.R. 2900 is available and actually does what H.R. 822 is only claimed to do.

    Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)
    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that State.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    September 13, 2011

    Mr. BROUN of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

    A BILL

    To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to provide for reciprocity in regard to the manner in which nonresidents of a State may carry certain concealed firearms in that 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 `Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act of 2011'.

    SEC. 2. 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

    `Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

    `(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

    `(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.

    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

    `926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.

    SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
    That's it. If you live in states like Arizona or Vermont, no permit is needed; you can carry concealed anywhere in the USA. Visiting Illinois? Carry is forbidden only in those places specifically banned by state law. Live in Illinois? Then send your money to Florida, Utah or Maine license for a license from one of those states and carry legally in spite of your totalitarian legislature.

    H.R. 2900 would actually be a giant step back towards honoring the 2nd Amendment and would be a powerful spur to cause states to reform the difficulty and costs of obtaining one of their own licenses to carry. In fact, since citizens of states which don't require such permits would be able to carry nationwide, it would be a spur to state legislatures to recognize Constitutional carry for their own citizens.

    Given the simplicity and lack of problems inherent in H.R. 2900's language I really, really have to question why the nation's major gun rights group is pushing the much more questionable and problematic H.R. 822.

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by brolin1911a1 View Post
    That's it. If you live in states like Arizona or Vermont, no permit is needed; you can carry concealed anywhere in the USA. Visiting Illinois? Carry is forbidden only in those places specifically banned by state law. Live in Illinois? Then send your money to Florida, Utah or Maine license for a license from one of those states and carry legally in spite of your totalitarian legislature.
    Isn't carry banned in the ENTIRE state of IL?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

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