"National Association of Gun Rights" - hidden or BS agenda?? - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: "National Association of Gun Rights" - hidden or BS agenda??

  1. GOA Flaw 1: Not true. Vermont already has this problem. Nothing stops Vermont citizens from getting a Florida/Utah/etc permit, which would still be valid under HR 822.

    GOA Flaw 2: "Slippery slope" argument. *ALL* HR 822 does is say "if you have a valid concealed permit in your state, and other states offer concealed carry permits, those states must honor yours." To be blunt, at a federal level, the federal government ALREADY treats concealed carry as a privilege, not a right. This doesn't take a stand either way. Most of the constitutional-carry states already offer a permit for the purpose of reciprocity. While I'd rather see federally-guaranteed constitutional concealed carry, that's still a long way off. I'd rather consider this as a "slippery slope" TOWARD federally-guaranteed constitutional concealed carry. (Which is what the anti-gun lobby says it is! Funny that both sides see it as the beginning of a drop AWAY from their point of view.)

    GOA Flaw 3: True. But it doesn't hurt them, either. HR 2900 is better, yes, but if you're going that far, you might as well have federal 'shall issue' permits. Neither of which will pass the current congress. If anything, having this oddball loophole is what will KEEP states may-issue rather than moving to no-issue over it. If HR 2900 were to pass, I could see a few states (CA if they could get away with it, which could change any given year,) switching to no-issue like IL.

    GOA Flaw 4: We *ALREADY* abuse "commerce clause" in federal gun laws. This at least has SOME actual "interstate" aspect to it, and in the name of guaranteeing MORE freedom, rather than less.

  2.   
  3. They maybe lying while telling the truth

    Certain non profit organizations are not allowed to endorse specific candidates but can release 'voters guides'
    This is really just a semantic difference as a voting guide can show specifically what it wants to, and make the preferred choice obvious.
    I agree it is a money grab, but what they are saying may be technically true, it is deceiving.

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Wait till it gets to the House floor and see how many amendments get attached. It is my feelings that when it leaves the House, it will be anti-gun owner and a power grab by the Federal gov't.

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by S&W645 View Post
    Wait till it gets to the House floor and see how many amendments get attached. It is my feelings that when it leaves the House, it will be anti-gun owner and a power grab by the Federal gov't.
    This is faulty logic. ANY pro-gun legislation at the federal level can *possibly* be subject to amendments, riders, etc being added. If we refuse to suppor a bill based on this argument, we might as well not support ANY pro-gun legislation.

    Also, I heard something about all the amendments that were proposed for the bill got defeated in committee or something like that. (I'm not a legislation wonk so I don't know the proper terminology, procedures, etc.)
    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

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillip Gain View Post
    This is faulty logic. ANY pro-gun legislation at the federal level can *possibly* be subject to amendments, riders, etc being added. If we refuse to suppor a bill based on this argument, we might as well not support ANY pro-gun legislation.

    Also, I heard something about all the amendments that were proposed for the bill got defeated in committee or something like that. (I'm not a legislation wonk so I don't know the proper terminology, procedures, etc.)
    There was an amendment made as I had pointed out to me. And substitute wording. Even though the NRA-ILA message said none. 10 were proposed along the way. The one that made it in was the research one by the GAO. A worrisome thing in itself. Both versions are online at Bill Text - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by philgethifi View Post
    This is from Gun Owners of America

    Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

    Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry
    Flaw 1 and 2 are basically the same flaw. It has been said already that 822 is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. If 2900 goes to the floor and improves things for the residents of may issue states like New Jersey, then so be it, but we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Vermonters can and will probably get a token Utah or similar out-of-state permit.


    Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

    H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms "have been shipped in interstate commerce," the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the "commerce" the Founder's envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.
    The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to "regulate virtually anything � [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
    The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the "full faith and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.
    It's not expansive! Driver's licenses are acknowledged to be universally accepted in every state. Besides, the Gibbons v. Ogden decision finding was that steamship navigation is part of commerce and that states could not pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states. So, interstate commerce has long been decided, and affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago in the majority opinion and citing Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Freedom to safely travel does not stop at the state line.
    "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

  8. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by weekendskp View Post
    Flaw 1 and 2 are basically the same flaw. It has been said already that 822 is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. If 2900 goes to the floor and improves things for the residents of may issue states like New Jersey, then so be it, but we don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Vermonters can and will probably get a token Utah or similar out-of-state permit.


    It's not expansive! Driver's licenses are acknowledged to be universally accepted in every state. Besides, the Gibbons v. Ogden decision finding was that steamship navigation is part of commerce and that states could not pass laws regulating steamship traffic operating between two or more states. So, interstate commerce has long been decided, and affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago in the majority opinion and citing Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Freedom to safely travel does not stop at the state line.
    United States Code: Title 18,31. Definitions | LII / Legal Information Institute

    Right to Travel

    Supreme Law School : E-mail : Box 036 : Msg 03678

    WHO HAS RIGHTS?!
    The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by philgethifi View Post
    This is from Gun Owners of America

    Flaw #1: H.R. 822 Destroys Vermont Carry

    In Vermont, it has long been the case that law-abiding residents and non-residents alike could carry a concealed firearm, except for use in the commission of a crime. The state, incidentally, also has the distinction of consistently being ranked one of the safest states in the country.

    H.R. 822 does not grant reciprocity to residents of Vermont, as the bill requires the presence of a physical permit in order to qualify. The state would be forced to move to a permit system for purposes of reciprocity, in effect being punished for having a system that is "too pro-gun."

    Separate legislation H.R. 2900--supported by GOA and introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA)--would recognize the right of Vermont residents to carry in other states, requiring only that a picture identification (such as a drivers license) be in possession of the person carrying.

    Flaw #2: H.R. 822 Undermines Constitutional Carry

    Following the lead of Vermont, several states have taken up the issue of Constitutional Carry--where citizens do not need to obtain government permission before carrying a concealed firearm. Criminals, after all, are not inclined to line up at the sheriff's office or police department in order to obtain a permit to carry, so such requirements primarily burden the law-abiding segment of society.

    In recent years, Alaska, Arizona and Wyoming have passed Constitutional Carry laws based on the Vermont model. Montana passed such a law that covers 98% of the state, and Texas passed a "constitutional carry lite" law that applies to firearms carried in a vehicle.

    These states, however, left in place a permitting system specifically for the purposes of reciprocity. And although upwards of 6 million Americans have obtained permits, most gun owners do not get a permit because they don't like a system that treats their liberty as a privilege granted by the government.

    About 98% of the adult American population, therefore, will be left out of the expansion of rights under (H.R. 822) whereas under H.R. 2900, more and more citizens will be covered as Constitutional Carry gains momentum. In this important respect, H.R. 822 pulls the rug out from under state legislatures which are considering Constitutional Carry, while H.R. 2900 does not.

    Flaw #3: H.R. 822 Does Not Help Many Residents in "May Issue" States

    H.R. 822 allows for carry in any state except for Illinois and the state of one's residence. This will prove to be a major obstacle for gun owners to carry in their home states in many instances.

    In many states, a person must be one of the lucky few or well-connected citizens in order to get a carry permit. Simply put, in some areas (i.e., California, Maryland, and Massachusetts), it's nearly impossible for residents to get a permit.

    Residents can get an out-of-state permit, but under H.R. 822 they would be unable to carry in their home state (unless they were among the privileged few to have an in-state permit).

    This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits.

    On the contrary, H.R. 2900 allows recognition in any state that allows concealed carry, thus letting citizens who live in these restrictive "may issue" states to still carry handguns in their home state so long as they hold a valid out-of-state permit.

    In the landmark McDonald v. Chicago decision (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. H.R. 2900 simply puts "teeth" into that ruling.

    Flaw #4: H.R. 822 Takes Expansive View of the Commerce Clause

    H.R. 822 relies on an abused and expansive view of the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The bill states that because firearms "have been shipped in interstate commerce," the Congress in justified in passing this legislation. That is not the "commerce" the Founder's envisioned as they sought to remove barriers of interstate trade.

    The modern and broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause would, in the words of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (Gonzales v. Raich), confer on the federal government the power to "regulate virtually anything � [until] the federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."

    The Broun bill ensures that citizens enjoy the "full faith and credit" protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.
    This is the section that I am personally interested in:

    "This, obviously, creates the odd situation of requiring states to recognize the permits of non-state residents, but not recognizing those of state residents who have out-of-state permits."

  10. #19
    In my opinion Dudley and his cronies are either stupid or con men. I have serious reservations about HR822. But that is a separate issue. Even stupid people are right sometimes. :)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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