H.R. 822 is still troublesome
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: H.R. 822 is still troublesome

  1. H.R. 822 is still troublesome

    As H.R.822 makes its way through the House of Representatives and most of the anti-gun ammendments were knocked down, it still leaves open, if passed, a way for liberals and democrats in the federal government to gain control of the requirements not only for reciprocity but for individual gun owners in each state making it more and more difficult for each of us to protect ourselves in keeping with the Second Ammendment. We each need to contact our congressmen and congresswomen to make sure the bill is written so as this scenario cannot occur.

  3. #2
    I dont know if I like this bill. Sure it would be nice to be able to carry in every state, but I dont go CA or NY or IL anyway so I dont care. The feds will also be able to attach even more strict laws on where you can carry compared to the restrictions currently made by states, and the feds will make laws on how you can carry as well.
    The federal government could be using their time more wisely by challenging states like IL, NY, and CA that outright violate the constitution.

  4. #3
    They can try to pass additional restrictions anyway this bill in no way affects that one way or the other. Any pro gun law passed is a step forward. And I see this as the first step to challenging the no carry states by putting nationwide carry right in their lap.

  5. #4
    JSDinTexas Guest
    I am completely against HR 822 for a number of reasons. First, it is not needed because we have the 2nd. Second, it gives the feds authority over states to dictate the rules of carry and eligibility to carry. These rules will only get tougher and make it almost impossible to carry. Third, it removes the ability for states to decide for themselves what is best for their citizens.

    I feel sorry for those that live in ignorant states that ignore the Constitution, but I don't want the feds, who are notoriously anti-gun, to get involved. There is more to this than we now see, and will lead in the end to more gun control. The obvious reason the states have not absolutely rejected this is because they know it will lead to more gun control, of which govt at every level is in favor.

    Any time a govt shows a positive feeling towards guns and carry, something's up. And let's call this what it is, Federal Gun Control.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by JSDinTexas View Post
    ...First, it is not needed because we have the 2nd. .....
    Go ahead carry in New York and tell them that when they stick you in a cell with the city's lowest!


  7. #6
    JSDinTexas Guest
    NY is one of the states that doesn't believe in or follow the Constitution. Obviously.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by JSDinTexas View Post
    NY is one of the states that doesn't believe in or follow the Constitution. Obviously.
    That is why we don't need this bill. People continue to put up with the crap in NY and other states. We need to take the states and the courts back.

    Psalm 82:3-5

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Redding, CA.


    well okay I see both sides but It would help with the ignorant states Such as CA (which I live in) By most states that are pro gun states can help us with the votes in DC. But you are Right if you want something screwed up let the Government get a hold of it. So As I can see there are two sides to it. let us just pray that it goes in our favor which ever that way it go.

  10. So misinformed. Go to the NRA-ILA'S web site and LOOK at what this bill is. States retain the right to establish their laws, the feds have no say in a state by state basis. Also no fed registry. The bill is what it is and the NRA will keep it that way.

  11. I'm not misinformed, I know history.

    Currently the federal government has no say in any state's ccw laws.Once they pass a law that involves interstate ccw they can start dictating what the ccw laws are.

    The current law has nothing objectionable, but I promise, once the federal government gets involved they will take control.

    Don't believe me? Look at the history of our school systems, or highways. The feds have no right to put any regulations or requirements for either, but once they convinced the naive public that they were there to help and the states surrendered some control to them they, took over.

    My bet is that if this passes, states with more requirements to obtained a permit/license will complained that they do not want to recognized the less restrictive states. So the feds will set a 'minimum standard'. Once they start setting these standards it will just snowball to a nightmare of restrictions.

    Never ever give any control to the federal government.

    Just to be clear, I am not anti-government, I just believe that legislation should be as local as possible.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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