H.R.822>National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

[ianargent 7]

And Congress is enforcing that by appropriate legislation...

[mrjam2jab 9]

Frankly, there's one other thing that's worse than Obama... and it's the SAME problem with LEOSA The Federal Govt is overiding Local State Laws. While i'll take advantage of the law, as I expect anyone here would if HR 822 passes, The feds trampling States rights isnt so wonderful... it's GREAT when it comes to something we like...now what happens when it's something we DONT LIKE??? Slippery Slope, Camel's nose under the tent Flap..ect ect. ect. Think about it.

 

 

States don't have rights...they have powers....and who gave them the power to infringe on....

 

And Congress is enforcing that by appropriate legislation...

 

 

....the 2nd Amendment which is in the Federal purview to enforce.

[ianargent 7]

The 2A was applied against the states via the 14th amendment - which is what I was quoting. As was most of the rest of the Bill of Rights, prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment and the "discovery" of the Incorporation Doctrine it was not at all clear the BoR was applicable to the states, and technically it still isn't unless the right has been Incorporated. Blame the racists for that, but there you are. You want a different answer, rewrite the Constitution and a couple hundred years of judicial precedent.

 

The Federal Government enforces things against the states by legislation - hence, HR822. They have chosen to explicitly declare that under the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment requires the states recognize each others carry permits. Because of the path we took to get here, the states won't listen to anything else, and there will be a lawsuit over this as an overstep. The states lose - because of the precedent of LEOSA.

 

I don't happen to agree with the invocation of the Commerce Clause as an additional justification it's gilding the lily; but neither is it an integral justification of the legislation.

 

This is not a perfect solution - but it's one that will pass and can be further built upon. Next time around Congress can force the states to go shall-issue under the same doctrine, and with this as precedent, the anti's case is that much weaker. It took us 77 years of mostly losing to get here, we're not going to get to a state of perfect freedom in one go.

[Rifleman1 32]

Ahhh LEOSA, I had to go look that up...

 

"The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions."

 

 

[ianargent 7]

And there was a suit to override that on 10A grounds that was lost. Which is good for us; if Congress can mandate states allow carriage by a certain class of people, they can mandate all be allowed to carry.

 

Remember, shouting "shall not be infringed" hasn't worked to date - let's see what happens when Congress says "and we mean it."

[KpdPipes 388]

States don't have rights...they have powers....and who gave them the power to infringe on....

 

 

 

 

....the 2nd Amendment which is in the Federal purview to enforce.

 

 

Anyone know what year they STOPPED teaching basic Civics??? The US constitution as written, does 2 things. #1. It defines how the Federal Govt Operates. #2, the Ammendments (AKA "Bill of Rights") Lists Limitations on the power of the FEDERAL GOVT. If you actually READ it you will see "Congress Shall not", and so forth. The Idea was that the states through their OWN Constitutions would govern themselves. Once the 14th Ammendment was passed, subsequent SCOTUS decisions began "Incorporating" certain ammendments to also apply to the states because those states were infringing on their Citizens' rights. So, Until the McDonald Decision, which Officially Incorporated the 2nd Ammendment as also applying to the individual states, there was NO SUCH THING as an "Unconstitutuional" (In the federal sense) State Gun law. You may not LIKE it..but it doesnt change the actual FACTS of the Matter.

[BigHayden 77]

Frankly, there's one other thing that's worse than Obama... and it's the SAME problem with LEOSA The Federal Govt is overiding Local State Laws. While i'll take advantage of the law, as I expect anyone here would if HR 822 passes, The feds trampling States rights isnt so wonderful... it's GREAT when it comes to something we like...now what happens when it's something we DONT LIKE??? Slippery Slope, Camel's nose under the tent Flap..ect ect. ect. Think about it.

 

If this law was establishing some federal standard for permits to be issued, I would agree with you. If this law carved out a special class of people who were allowed to carry anywhere based on their employment regardless of state law (you know, the LEOSA), I would agree with you. But this law simply forces the states to recognize the rights of the people from other states, just as they do their own. This isn't being done under the bullsh*t of the commerce clause. This is being done under the 14th Amendment (and actually, HR2900 is better, since it uses the 2A as its basis).

 

This law says that somebody from PA with a PA permit to carry can carry a gun in NJ, in accordance with NJ law regarding carry, just like that person had a permit to carry issued by the state of NJ. It isn't overriding the law, it's overriding the arbitrary reciprocal agreements that the AG (a political appointee) has the authority to change at will. Look at NM. NM used to honor UT permits, but they revoked that agreement last year because the new AG decided that UT's training requirement wasn't strict enough. HR822 would stop that type of crap

 

Anytime the Federal government steps in to protect the people from the states, it is always a good thing, period.

[ianargent 7]

The Constitution does set some limits on the states. Otherwise, you're spot-on

[KpdPipes 388]

The Constitution does set some limits on the states. Otherwise, you're spot-on

Not in the BOR..until the 14th was passed.

[BigHayden 77]

Not in the BOR..until the 14th was passed.

 

Agreed, which is why Alan Gura/SAF's strategy of laying 2A case law groundwork is so important.

[ianargent 7]

Amendment X contains a limitation on the states in that certain powers denied the states are reserved to the people, but I take your meaning. The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly believed it was necessary to amend the Constitution to apply more limitations on the powers of the states.

[jcerillo70 16]

Update for everyone: on Oct 14, 2011

 

Last Action: Mr. Chabot asked unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary have until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 20, 2011, to file a report to accompany H.R. 822.

[jcerillo70 16]

You can watch the most recent hearing on 822 here

 

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_10132011.html

[KpdPipes 388]

Amendment X contains a limitation on the states in that certain powers denied the states are reserved to the people, but I take your meaning. The framers of the 14th Amendment certainly believed it was necessary to amend the Constitution to apply more limitations on the powers of the states.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

the Prohibitions to the states are procedural in nature, and incorporated into the text, not the BOR..such things as the Direct Appointment of Senators, which had to be changed through the Ammendment process, as well as certain jurisdictions. The Issue HERE in NJ is that our Constitution (Enacted on 2 July 1776) DOES NOT and Has not EVER Contained an RKBA provision. Up until Heller (RKBA is an individual not a collective Right) and McDonald (2nd Ammendment Incorporated) NJ could have banned all firearms altogether and been completely Legal under the US Constitution.

[ianargent 7]

I was being a little pedantic, for which I apologize. I agree that until the 14th amendment the BoR was understood to be a limitation on the federal government, not on the states.

[KpdPipes 388]

I was being a little pedantic, for which I apologize. I agree that until the 14th amendment the BoR was understood to be a limitation on the federal government, not on the states.

No Worries, at least you Do understand it.. Sadly FAR too many people can't grasp what the Founders Intended. The Federalist papers SHOULD be required reading IMO. Thats Why i laugh at some of the guys who complain about Herman Cain's interview when he said the States should be allowed their own laws..He actually IS Following the constitution..just not in the way that his detractors want.

[RLTW 3]

Please go to Cory Booker (Newark Mayor) video for the MAIG coalition and what he calls an "INSANE" idea. Be sure to dislike his video while understanding he has no clue about the 2nd amendment. He has more murders in his city than Utah & has a more murders than any Florida city. This man is against legal conceal carry while his city daily has armed criminals running around in GANGS robbing, shooting, & just terrorizing its citizens.

 

 

[johnott 5]

Thumbs down to Cory Booker.

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I tried to add this as a video response but it was blocked or deleted.

 

Oh well, I guess if your going to trample on the 2A might as well do the same with the 1ST.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLxtPgP_-LpJtpjMImv_BFvg

 

Harry

[cubflyer50 1]

You can watch the most recent hearing on 822 here

 

http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/mark_10132011.html

Watch this video of Rep. Hank Johnson of Ga., one of the democrat committee members....you'll see the general type of 'leader' they have elected.....it's hilarious!!!(and sickening) www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0pMcFyWy6s

[jcerillo70 16]

Watch this video of Rep. Hank Johnson of Ga., one of the democrat committee members....you'll see the general type of 'leader' they have elected.....it's hilarious!!!(and sickening) NobodyCanMakeThisStuffUp-01.avi

 

His voice is like james earl jones on downers lol

[cubflyer50 1]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0pMcFyWy6s

Watch one of democratic Rep. Hank Johnson from Ga. on the HR822 committee on another topic...kind of gives you a lot of confidence in their ability to understand the facts..

[hd2000fxdl 422]

So can I carry yet???

 

Harry

[Ray Ray 3,566]

So can I carry yet???

 

Harry and Ray

[winki 0]

I tried to add this as a video response but it was blocked or deleted.

 

Oh well, I guess if your going to trample on the 2A might as well do the same with the 1ST.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo&feature=mh_lolz&list=FLxtPgP_-LpJtpjMImv_BFvg

 

Harry

 

 

This is the video you should have posted...

 

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=4U7kuqow3gg

[jcerillo70 16]

Update on HR 822:

 

>Final passage: vote has passed Today. The bill as amended hasbeen reported favorably

 

>The bill will be reported amended, without objection the billwill be a single amendment. Members will have 2 days to submit their views.

 

 

 

I would assume today is the final day for 822 in the house of reps before they send it to the senate.

You can watch it at 9:00am

http://judiciary.hou...k_10252011.html

[Malsua 1,422]

Packing heat on your street...sure, why not?

------------

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/gun-control-advocates-suddenly-embrace-state-sovereignty

 

'Gun control' advocates suddenly embrace state sovereignty

 

Yesterday, H.R. 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011," introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL), passed a House Judiciary Committee vote, and thus now goes to the House floor. The bill's prospects there look bright, given the fact that even if 27 of its 245 co-sponsors failed to vote for it, that would still leave it with bipartisan majority support.

 

This, as one might imagine, has put the anti-self-defense lobby in a state of hysterical outrage. The Brady Campaign, for example, has renamed it the "Packing Heat on Your Street Act" (named, perhaps, by the same not very gifted intern who renamed full capacity magazines "assault clips," or the even more ludicrous "Big Bullet-Blasting Boxes"), and has been shrieking (and lying) about it for weeks.

 

In Brady Campaign Acting President Dennis "What People?" Henigan's latest Huffington Post column, he brings up the "states' rights" (since states have powers, rather than rights, a more accurate term would be "state sovereignty") argument:

 

In fact, the version adopted by the House Judiciary majority last week would allow non-resident concealed carriers to pack heat in states where they were previously ineligible even to possess a gun. So much for states' rights. Under H.R. 822, the Congress would prevent states from enforcing the restrictions they have deemed necessary for public safety against out-of-state gun carriers.

 

Likewise, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), generally loudly supportive of an all-powerful federal government, now seems happy to beat the "states' rights" drum:

 

NRA getting defensive about its dangerous bill that would eliminate states' rights to regulate guns in public.

 

Then again, CSGV seems a bit conflicted on the "states's rights"/federal power issue, judging by this comment:

 

What's interesting about this bill is it's generated quite a bit of discussion as to whether there should be a minimum federal standard (in terms of background check requirements) to carry a concealed handgun.

 

The Brady Campaign proudly advertised its own opposition to state sovereignty, when waxing hysterical about various states' passage of their respective versions of the Firearms Freedom Act, whereby guns, ammunition and shooting accessories not moving in interstate commerce would not be subject to federal gun laws.

 

Senator Barbara Boxer, much like CSGV, blithely jumps back and forth between support for "states' rights," with regard to concealed carry laws, and absolute federal authority on the issue. In 2009, arguing against an amendment by Senator John Thune (R-SD) that would have had much the same effect as this year's H.R. 822, Boxer had this to say:

 

This debate is not about the right to own a gun. That has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is about allowing States to determine their own laws. And I totally get why some more rural States with fewer people would have different laws on conceal and carry than a State of 38 million people, my home State of California. Leave us alone. Leave us alone. You want to have conceal and carry with very few requirements, fine.

 

Early this year, though, she introduced S. 176, the "Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011," which would basically impose California's draconian "may issue (but probably won't)" concealed carry laws, on every state. "Leave us alone," indeed.

 

This is not to say that there are not legitimate state-sovereignty objections to H.R. 822. Chief among those would be that in asserting the bill's claim of Constitutional authority, it perpetuates the rampant abuse of the interstate commerce clause (H.R. 2900, on the other hand, cites the Second Amendment as its Constitutional authority for federal protection of the right to carry a defensive firearm)--the same clause, by the way, that the federal government cites as providing the legitimacy for trampling the Firearms Freedom Act laws passed in several states.

 

As it happens, though, there is nothing inconsistent in supporting both state sovereignty and federal enforcement of the "bear" in "right to keep and bear arms". In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court made Constitutional protection of the individual's right to keep and bear arms a settled point of Constitutional law. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the rights protected by the Second Amendment against state and local governments.

 

Yes--there's hypocrisy in this debate, but not on the part of those who advocate both the Tenth Amendment and federal enforcement of the Second Amendment

[Rifleman1 32]

Update on HR 822:

>Final passage: vote has passed Today. The bill as amended hasbeen reported favorably

>The bill will be reported amended, without objection the billwill be a single amendment. Members will have 2 days to submit their views.

I would assume today is the final day for 822 in the house of reps before they send it to the senate.

You can watch it at 9:00am

http://judiciary.hou...k_10252011.html

 

I didn't see a link for the live 9AM hearing. Is there one?

[jcerillo70 16]

I think they mis labeled it as 10/26/11 , but i started it at 9:45 so i missed it. They usually repost the entire hearing later in the day.

 

 

Anyone catch it in time and see what happened?

 

Also good luck today to everyone going to the SAF vs. NJ hearing today

[stever 16]

I think they mis labeled it as 10/26/11 , but i started it at 9:45 so i missed it. They usually repost the entire hearing later in the day.

 

 

Anyone catch it in time and see what happened?

 

Also good luck today to everyone going to the SAF vs. NJ hearing today

 

I missed first 20 mins, but all I saw was 1. immigration and 2. designer synthetic drugs