URGENT - TAKE ACTION TODAY - HR822

The US House of Representatives is scheduled to Vote on HR 822, the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act," TOMORROW, Tuesday, November 15. This bill, though imperfect, has momentum. We should emphasize passage WITH NO AMENDMENTS.

You can email your representative at the link below:


Thompson
https://forms.house.gov/benniethompson/contact-form.shtml

Nunnelee
http://nunnelee.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=58§iontree=3,58

Harper
http://harper.house.gov/contact-gregg/email-gregg

Palazzo
https://palazzo.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Just to play Devil's advocate. I feel safe assuming here that many of us are conservatives. As conservatives, we generally want to see less intrusion of government into states rights. The biggest example as of late being the healthcare bill for instance. We don't like the federal government stepping in and telling us (states) what to do. That being the case, having the federal government tell all the states "you have to recognize the CCW's of all other states that have a CCW permit", is in spirit the exact same thing as the intrusions we stand so strongly against. It's picking and choosing "intrustions" that advance our agendas just like we often accuse liberals of doing, instead of fundamentally standing against states rights intrusions.

I understand that a CCW in spirit is really no different than a driver's license or a marriage license that is recognized throughout all the states, but before you jump on the band wagon for this bill, I urge you to think about whether or not you really want to grant the federal government ANY more power over 2nd amendment issues than they already have, whether we perceive it as good or bad (because given the right political climate I guarantee what was once good can be reinterpreted and reshaped as bad).

Don't get me wrong, I think it sounds great, but I think it deserves more attention, thought and debate rather than just rolling with it because it sounds good and the NRA is backing it. Just my thoughts.

I go to Kansas City several times a year. As part of it sits in Missouri, and part in Kansas, I just don't carry there. We have reciprocity with MO, but not KS. My daughter and her family live on the MO side and when we go to visit, we travel all over the area, shopping and eating out. I can't carry because I don't know where we will be at any given time. We may cross the border several times in one day.

If this resolution will allow me to carry all the time, then I'll be for it. Yes, I know I'll have to follow KS carry rules. I follow MO while I am there, AR while I am there, etc...

I'm sorry, I just don't see a bunch of black helicopters flying around on this one.
All I see is CCW being treated the same as a driver's license.

With our legislature, it probably won't pass anyway, so all this could be moot.

308th_sps

I'm no more fonder than anyone else of "big government" but this is something that should already be in effect based on the Constitution. Article IV, Section I. Took the liberty (pun not intended) of posting it below.


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.


This (to me, at least) means that even though one state's qualifications for, say, a driver's license, may not match another's, both states must respect the license issued by the other state as fully effective. If one state's qualifications are below par, it should be the responsibilty of that state's citizens and local/state government to see it improved. Failure of each state to do so would only lead to chaos, confusion, disorder, and a general mess.

My two cents.

I am in favor of full reciprocity and have urged Rep. to support it.

I notice the NRA is backing this so I am to.
scott

mascott wrote:I notice the NRA is backing this so I am to.
scott

Yes but please remember history: The NRA backed the Brady Bill "compromise" as well. The NRA backed the domestic violence provisions that have kept many a law-abiding gun owner who have had a restraining order filed against them by a vindictive girlfriend / ex-wife from passing the NICS check. Just because the NRA backs something doesn't mean it is 100% "good". I personally fear what the fed will do to "standardize" the requirements for a CCW so that it can be recognized in all 50 states. Imagine the worst of the worst requirements for a CCW, being applied to all 50. I know what the NRA says, I am a Life Member for almost 25 years and I get all of the ILA emails. But in the court of law / legislation, where all 50 will have to reach a common standard, the highest standard will be the "national standard". That is the logical conclusion that will play out either legislatively or in courts - otherwise everyone would scramble to get an out of state permit in the least restrictive state. Think the anti-gunners would allow that? I don't think so...
My

Each state has it's own requirements to obtain a driver's license. The Feds have not jumped in to say that everyone must pass a federally approved driving test.

I don't think this is any different.

A lot of people haven't read or don't comprehend the full bill. Even the media is saying that this will allow permit holders to carry guns in states that prohibit them. Not true. Permit holders will have to obey the laws of the state they are in at that time. If Idaho allows ccw then you can carry there but only under Idaho laws/rules. If Illinois doesn't allow ccw for it's residents then you can't carry there.

Regardless of where you have your permit from, you must obey the laws of whatever state you are in at that time.

308th_sps

It's kinda funny really... I wont vote for 26 because the government has no right interfering and I dont want more federal legislation telling me what I can or cannot do. But I will push for my rep to vote for this gun law because I want to carry everywhere... So what if it gives the fed more power and control over our lives, I want this. Not trying to step on any toes, I'm just saying...

1.Well first off read Doug's thread

http://www.msgunowners.com/t18402-the-danger-of-federal-concealed-carry-reciprocity

2. writing Thompson is a waste of ink and email bandwith

3. I agree with a few others on here...just cause the NRA gets behind a bill doesn't mean I need to....I aint their lap dog

4. ...you folks that bitched and moaned about giving goverment power on Initiative 26...have no problems with Obama care or this thing right...?



Don't be double-minded

Totally agree on (2) Thompson is a waste of ink and clean oxygen.
scott

mascott wrote:Totally agree on (2) Thompson is a waste of ink and clean oxygen.
scott

Maybe so -- BUT do not give in that quickly .... email him!!

For those of you that don't travel to states with no reciprocity, I'm sure this is of no use to you. I do travel to some of these states and would like to be able to legally carry.

I don't think this can be compared to Initiative 26. I voted no because I have two daughters. I want them to be able to make that decision.
Besides, it was a state thing, not federal.

I have never met Doug. I do have a lot of respect for his gun knowledge from reading his posts. He knows a LOT more than I do. Same with msredneck. However, I disagree with them on this subject. But thats ok. Democracy at work. Ain't America great?

308th_sps

American by birth, Southern by the Grace of God

msredneck wrote:1.Well first off read Doug's thread

http://www.msgunowners.com/t18402-the-danger-of-federal-concealed-carry-reciprocity

2. writing Thompson is a waste of ink and email bandwith

3. I agree with a few others on here...just cause the NRA gets behind a bill doesn't mean I need to....I aint their lap dog

4. ...you folks that bitched and moaned about giving goverment power on Initiative 26...have no problems with Obama care or this thing right...?



Don't be double-minded

I agree!!!!!!!

H.R. 2900 is a much better option.

The GOA is against this one; you will not be able to carry a firearm in your vehicle without having a permit; it will eliminate Vermont-style carry (ie open carry without a permit), etc. You should read what they have posted on their site about this bill.

I went to their website but didn't find anything against it. Where do I need to look?
scott

PS: I f I saw it correctly they wanted people to stop HR822 and support HR2900. Is this not correct?

mascott wrote:I went to their website but didn't find anything against it. Where do I need to look?
scott

PS: I f I saw it correctly they wanted people to stop HR822 and support HR2900. Is this not correct?

Sorry, I should have posted the link in my original message:
http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm
You are correct, they are suggesting gun owners support HR2900 instead of HR822.

I've been watching CSPAN a little today and following the HR822 stuff. I have always suspected that there were a bunch of idiots in the legislature. I'm positive of it now. Some of the arguments against (and even some for) HR822 and some of the proposed amendments are just plain stupid.

According to NRA on Facebook, it did pass the house today