Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   Legal and Activism (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/)
-   -   Let's get the bill passed (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/lets-get-bill-passed-50779/)

Scratchammo 10-29-2011 05:43 AM

Let's get the bill passed
 
NRA-ILA :: H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act -- Heading to House Floor; Contact your Representative Now!

fireguy 10-29-2011 02:27 PM

I am in favor of reciprocity within states that allow CC. I have more than a little fear of a national law requiring it for a couple of reasons. Chiefly, one of the pro 2A arguments has always been that the fed should not legislate in the matter of firearms. It should be left up to the individual states. If the fed gets its smarmy little fingers into the self-defense/protection aspect of firearms ownership it certainly may open other avenues for control by future anti-gun congresses.

Secondly, I am a strong supporter of state's rights. A national bill such as is proposed, while seeming to be affirmative to CC users, weakens a state's ability to set it's own standards. What happens when the fed makes a requirement of a specific level of training, perhaps even to an unreasonably onerous level? Will a state like AZ be forced to require that training in place of it's remarkable and commendable "all citizens may carry"?

I could go on, but those are the main points that concern me. I fear that every additional power we relinquish to the fed gov weakens us as citizens, and weakens the individual states. We should support the CC cause and work for the states to reconcile their requirements and acceptance of other state permits. Allowing the fed to mandate it is a terrible mistake in my opinion.

EagleSix 10-29-2011 02:36 PM

I respectfully disagree.....HR822 is a bad idea. It may lead to violating state rights and would establish, on a national level, you do not have a God Given Right to use lethal force to protect yourself against illegal lethal force.

.

Scratchammo 10-29-2011 03:16 PM

Hmm good point, I see what y'all mean.

dunerunner 10-29-2011 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleSix (Post 613948)
I respectfully disagree.....HR822 is a bad idea. It violates state rights and would establish, on a national level, you do not have a God Given Right to use lethal force to protect yourself against illegal lethal force.

.

All of this could be avoided if the SCOTUS would rule that the 2A was the law of the land and would rule all State restrictive gun laws unconstitutional. When each State joined the Union, they pledged to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and abide by those statutes in the adoption of State law.

The right to life is inaliable, as is liberty and the persuit of happiness....I read that somewhere!!:rolleyes:

ttolhurst 10-29-2011 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fireguy (Post 613940)
Chiefly, one of the pro 2A arguments has always been that the fed should not legislate in the matter of firearms. It should be left up to the individual states.

In all the years I've been involved with firearms, I've never heard this argument before HR822 came up. No, pro-2A folks have not argued that firearms regulations should be left up to the states. We've argued that the 2nd Amendment protects our gun rights from state and Federal interference. Now, suddenly, we're all in favor of state gun laws?

Pffft.

ttolhurst 10-29-2011 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EagleSix (Post 613948)
I respectfully disagree.....HR822 is a bad idea. It violates state rights and would establish, on a national level, you do not have a God Given Right to use lethal force to protect yourself against illegal lethal force.
.

Please cite the relevant portion of HR822 which would establish that you have no right to use lethal force against a deadly threat. Here's the text:

Text of H.R.822 as Introduced in House: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

ttolhurst 10-29-2011 03:58 PM

[Deleted duplicate post]

JTJ 10-29-2011 04:12 PM

I know where you are coming from on states rights but look back at interstate commerce. At one time every state charged a tariff on goods passing through each state. The feds had to put a stop to it as the cost of goods was skyrocketing. Is it fair for a state to violate the civil rights of visitors?
There are currently states that have no right to carry. If I go to CA to visit I am defenseless. Since they have no right to carry I will probably remain defenseless. I could not go to CA but it is a long way around if I want to go to OR or WA and my kids live in CA. We travel during the summer and it is sometimes a night mare as to where and when I can carry. I am constantly back and forth storing my guns in the trailer and taking them out.

EagleSix 10-29-2011 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ttolhurst (Post 613997)
Please cite the relevant portion of HR822 which would establish that you have no right to use lethal force against a deadly threat. Here's the text:

Text of H.R.822 as Introduced in House: National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

....I read it long before this thread.....you are correct however and I have edited by post to reflect clarity....

"I respectfully disagree.....HR822 is a bad idea. It may lead to violating state rights and would establish, on a national level, you do not have a God Given Right to use lethal force to protect yourself against illegal lethal force."

.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:28 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.