opinions on HR 822, the federal ccw reciprocity act
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: opinions on HR 822, the federal ccw reciprocity act

  1. #1

    opinions on HR 822, the federal ccw reciprocity act

    There are some well intentioned pro-gun organizations who oppose this bill saying this will be a door to more federal gun control and others that say it is a good idea and will alleviate some headaches as we that carry concealed travel about the country. I am all for the bill but I believe we must keep apprised of bill content and reject anything that would restrict our second amendment right or give government too much control. What's your opinion?

  2.   
  3. #2
    I agree with you. We have to keep our eyes wide open. I started a thread like this a week or so back. Had a lot of opinions on it. Some for, some against and some not so sure, which is where I am. I sort of lean toward going with it since the NRA is for it. They haven't let us down yet (other than all the spam) and hopefully they are watching it real close.

  4. #3
    It is the only way I can carry in my home state of Oregon currently being in a state not contiguous to it anymore. I just wish this could get passed before Thanksgiving.

  5. #4
    I get negative feedback from NAGR but 2 others I am associated with, Buckeye Firearms Assoc. and USCCA are both for it and with NRA behind it I like the idea however I know anti-gun House members will try and sneak in some amendments to it.

  6. #5

    I'm with the NRA on this one..

    I think that rejecting a piece of legislation because of "what might be added to it" or "what doors it might open" is pure idiocy. On that logic, we gun owners could not suppor ANY legislation. For those unfamiliar with the legislative process...any amendment can be added or taken away from ANY bill prior to its passing.

    So far, ALL the anti-gun amendments designed to gut and neuter HR 822 have been defeated and removed.

    While I believe, in principle, that there really should not be much (if any) firearms legislation beyond the 2nd Amendment...the reality is that legislation infringing our 2nd Amendment rights DOES exist, and IS NOT going to just go away. The strategy of composing legislation affirming and clarifying the rights of the gun owner has been largely successful, and I see no reason for it not to be successful in this case.

    Lastly - when it comes to legal issues...I'm quite certain the NRA can afford (and does have) more savvy and competent attorneys than do the organizations who are nay-saying the legislation.
    S&W M&P 45; Ruger GP100 .357 Magnum; Charter Arms .38 Undercover
    http://www.usacarry.com/forums/members/phillip-gain-albums-phil-s-photos-picture3828-reciprocity-map-29jun11.JPG

  7. #6
    There are two valid arguments regarding this bill: The Pro-gunners who oppose it say that it's too meddling on the states rights front. While I can see their point, the Constitution trumps states rights; specifically when it comes to the "keep and bear arms" clause in the 2A! They point to the 10A 'enumeration', saying that it violates states ability to regulate arms, but the 2A already provides that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; therefore it can't be a violation to tell the states that they must not violate an already enumerated prohibition. In my view, a states CCW, CCDWP, CHP, etc. is basically like a driver's license; states don't question an out of state driver on the validity or merits of his/her driving permit, so how can states question another license issued by the same state? Sure there's federal standards for issuance of driver licenses--something I do not advocate for CCW--but most states have essentially the same process for getting a CCW; pass a background check, take a class, show some competency (granted that's NOT the process for all states).

    It really boils down to this: the states' enumerated power to reject out-of-state CCW permits does not exist. The 2A is Constitutional mandate and not subject to infringement by the states. Freedoms protected by the Constitution are outside the jurisdictional regulation of the states. Requiring that one get a CCW permit is a violation of the 2A protection, but we have to chip away at these ridiculous infringements piecemeal if we want our God-given and Constitutionally protected freedoms preserved.

  8. The opposition has already tried to sneak some bullsh$t into the bill and the NRA shot them all down, as per one Rachel Pardons on last weeks Armed American Radio show.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Soverign State of Poverty Knob near Tennessee
    Posts
    200
    The only real problem that I see with this bill is that the 2A appears to not extend into Illinois or the District of Columbia. It just provides reciprocity for states that have provisions for issue of a handgun carry permit. It is not universal, and when you get to the state line of Illinois, or drive into Washington, D.C., you become a felon and subject to arrest. This looks like it could provide some interesting case law for anyone willing to go to the trouble of getting arrested, finding a good lawyer, and having the fortune to beat the state law in the judiciary. HR 822 needs to be a NATIONWIDE law requiring ALL states to honor the Second Amendment.
    Let's hear it for Gun Free Zones... Public places where the criminal has a monopoly
    on self defense. - Gary Nelson 2012

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas,NV
    Posts
    89
    If my thinking is correct?, the ones that are against it, think that if this law is past, that the government will be the one's issuing the permits, this isnt what the H.R.822 is about, It's just like the Drivers lic., state issue them and all other state honor each others state lic., the only state that wouldnt be involved is illinois, sence they deprive there citizen of there 2nd amendment rights, As for me?, im for it

  11. #10
    Quote "The only real problem that I see with this bill is that the 2A appears to not extend into Illinois or the District of Columbia."

    Yeah, that's a shame, but it's still a step in the right direction.
    I also recognized the WB9 call. I figured you were probably in Illinois. I'm in 4 land. kf4mm.
    73

Page 1 of 2 12 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