Let's get the bill passed

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Scratchammo, Oct 29, 2011.

  1. fireguy

    fireguy New Member

    1,853
    0
    0
    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.
     

  2. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2011
  3. Scratchammo

    Scratchammo New Member

    1,490
    0
    0
    Hmm good point, I see what y'all mean.
     
  4. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0
    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:
     
  5. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    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.
     
  6. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    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
     
  7. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    [Deleted duplicate post]
     
  8. JTJ

    JTJ Well-Known Member Supporter

    9,677
    390
    83
    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.
     
  9. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    ....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."

    .
     
  10. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    I agree......on the other hand wonder how many snowballs will melt before that happens?!?! So until then, I'm not in favor of another law, which may and most likely will, restricting the right to carry from the feds.

    .
     
  11. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    Your part of the "pro-2A" may indeed make your argument......but you do not speak for all the Pro-2 Amendment folks. And, it's not suddenly. The fact is, every state has some gun laws. We can argue all day, about those laws, but facts are facts. However, in Arizona the state gun laws are being beaten down very successfully. We don't need another layer coming from the feds to deal with. I understand your argument and principal......we are much closer to agreeing than disagreeing. I just not in favor of any more gun laws in the feds book.

    I can remember many Pro-2A folks crying foul, when the assault ban was passed (and others like it), referencing it was against their state rights and state laws, as well as, like you reference, against the rights of the people. When a law is passed by the feds which takes restrictions off my gun rights, I will be more in favor of it. This law doesn't do that and could easily fall victim to changes we would learn to regret. I respect and understand your opinion, I however to not agree.

    .
     
  12. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    It still seems like you're saying HR822 would somehow change the rules regarding the use of lethal force.
     
  13. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    That's where I think we part; it seems to me that HR822 does exactly that. I'm trying to understand why you believe otherwise.

    Yes, that could happen. But that threat is constant, and doesn't require HR822.
     
  14. silverado113

    silverado113 New Member

    2,992
    2
    0
    My worry about this bill is that if we allow the Fed to mandate that all states honor another state's CCP. What happens when the Fed comes back and says well now in order to renew you have to pay X, do Y, and then we will think about allowing you another year or two to carry. Not saying that it will happen, but it could.
     
  15. ttolhurst

    ttolhurst New Member

    125
    0
    0
    Let's say this happens. How would we be worse off than we are right now? Your CCW will still be valid in your home state and any state that recognizes it today.
     
  16. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    I see exactly what you mean. If this is allowed then it is almost the same as a concession to allow our government more control later, for good or bad.
     
  17. fmj

    fmj Active Member

    3,460
    0
    36

    Well, as been hashed half to death on another thread, there is this (unconstitutional) notion that FEDERAL law supersedes ALL others.
     
  18. silverado113

    silverado113 New Member

    2,992
    2
    0
    Well with the current anti gun Dems over there in DC who is to say they can't make it a "Chicago" or "California" type where you have to be a cop or its based on if you know your local sheriff. Same kind of situation with the Medicinal Marijuana laws and even though a state says one thing, the Fed comes in and overrules them.
     
  19. EagleSix

    EagleSix New Member

    358
    0
    0
    hurst, I apologize for my communication skills and will try this again....if you read the bill in the forefront, there is nothing there which effects lethal force. If you trust your federal government to always protect your 2A rights, I guess you wouldn't need this law to begin with, and without a doubt there is no argument.....you can not trust the fed with any of your rights! My concern is what happens when the tides of congress change and this bill/law comes under attack with changes of restrictions which may and could effect my state. It is another layer, the citizens of Arizona would need to follow and defend, when (not just if, in my opinion) an anti-gun congress decided to attack it. This is another federal gun law we need to constantly monitor and defend. More time, more money, and in a venue we would be weak in. Any possible future restriction, could be a possible attack on my right to carry lethal tools to defend myself, family, and country.


    Although HR822 makes various statements which support the constitutional rights of the 2A, legislation is easily changed and this is not a constitutional amendment. This does establish a need from most states which require a gun carry restriction permit or license. We have enough of those now.....I really don't want to see another and especially with the feds.


    It is easier to attack and add slowly and constantly to an already established law, than it is, if the law doesn't exist.

    ---------

    I understand you obviously want a right to carry in some other state you travel to and think this bill, if made law, will give you that right. You are seeking to obtain a right, by the Constitution, you already have. But legally you can't......the Catch 22. You would like to force other states to recognize your right. Fair enough, but you are trying to breath fresh air into the dragons mouth.

    Why not support HR2900, which is a much better law for handgun carry, than HR822? I'm not in favor of HR2900, but it is a better bill giving some persons more rights, than they have in their own state and support more pro-2A folks than HR822.

    I support the NRA, on most issues, but not this one. I think they are wrong and will continue to oppose HR822. Fortunately for me, there is little to no chance this HR822 will pass the Senate, and absolutely no chance it will be signed by the current president.

    Since Florida started with the first CCW law, there have been major advancements in most states and in the last year, Arizona made a break through. It started with a law that conformed to the idea you needed special permits to carry what you already had a right to do. It has now turned around and back to the original right to carry concealed without a permit. If the other states continue to follow (like other states followed Florida)....well, you can see the benefit of getting to where you want to be, without getting the fed involved.

    There is a bucket of angry worms we are messing with and we could be putting ourselves in jeopardy trying to bit off more than we can chew messing around with the feds, when it is proven the states have made more progress.

    If we consider, we could be in jeopardy if the Supreme Court makes a wrong decision on the 2A in the future....and, even without it, there is nothing in the 2A which addresses concealed carry. HR822 would put concealed carry in federal law, for us in the masses who may not have law enforcement credentials.

    Again, I respect your right and your pro-2A beliefs. I don't agree, HR822 is a good law. But I'm glad we are on the same side for the big picture. And, if HR822 would become law, we'll still be friends as far as I'm concerned. After all, there are a few times I have been wrong!!

    .