M14 Forum

tonyben

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...est=latestnews


WASHINGTON – A state permit to carry a concealed firearm would be valid in almost every other state in the country under legislation the House passed Wednesday.

The first pro-gun bill the House has taken up this year and the first since Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., was severely injured in a gun attack in January, it had the National Rifle Association's backing and passed by a comfortable margin. The vote was 272-154, with only seven Republicans voting against it and 43 Democrats supporting it.

The Democratic-controlled Senate has no parallel bill. But two years ago, GOP Sens. John Thune of South Dakota and David Vitter of Louisiana nearly succeeded in attaching a similar measure to a larger bill.

Under the House legislation, people with a concealed carry permit in one state could carry a concealed weapon in every other state that gives people the right to carry concealed weapons.

While states have various standards for issuing such permits, currently only Illinois and the District of Columbia prohibit the concealed carrying of weapons.

"The Second Amendment is a fundamental right to bear arms that should not be constrained by state boundary lines," said GOP Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The bill's chief co-sponsor, Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., said states should consider concealed carry permits no differently from driver's licenses recognized by all states. He noted that many states already have reciprocity agreements with other states.

The legislation would "make it easier for law-abiding permit holders to know that they are simply in compliance with the law when they carry a firearm as they travel," he said.

Democratic opponents said the bill would constitute a "race to the bottom," with states that have strict requirements for issuing permits having to accept permits from states with far more lax standards.

"It's a situation where weaker state laws become the national law," said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va. He noted that some states require training for permit holders, or deny permits to those under 21 or who sell drugs to minors, commit sex offenses or are involved in domestic violence.

According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the measure would allow states with tough requirements, such as New York and California, "to allow in concealed carry gun-toting people from states, such as Florida, which repeatedly have given dangerous people licenses to carry."

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wrote President Barack Obama last week urging him to issue a veto threat against the bill. Passing the bill "would jeopardize public safety and would be an insult to states like New Jersey and New York that purposefully have strong gun ownership laws," they wrote.

The administration has not yet taken an official position on the bill.

Democrats also chided Republicans for ignoring their dedication to states' rights. "For the Republican House majority that supposedly believes in states' rights, this bill is shocking," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

There hasn't been much legislative action on firearms issues this year. A spending bill that the House is expected to vote on this week would bar the Justice Department from consolidating firearms sales records or maintaining information on people who have passed firearms background checks.

The chief sponsors of the concealed weapon measure, Stearns and Rep. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., said their proposal would not create a federal licensing system but merely require states to honor one another's carry permits.

People who are unable to get a permit in their home state would not be able to carry a concealed weapon in their home state by getting a permit in another state. A state's ban on carrying concealed weapons in places such as bars, sporting events or state parks would apply to nonresidents as well as residents.

Thirty-five states have "shall issue" permit laws that usually require states to issue permits to those who meet legal requirements. Ten others have "may issue" or discretionary permit laws. Vermont, Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

philip26p

"Democrats also chided Republicans for ignoring their dedication to states' rights. "For the Republican House majority that supposedly believes in states' rights, this bill is shocking," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y."

I didn’t think THEY were really that stupid to go there, and has Nadler heard of this thing called the 2nd Amendment?

DukeRustfield

It's totally true. The state's rights only apply to things the Right dislikes. Clean air emissions on cars? No, that's state's rights. Marriage among 2 consenting adults? No, that's state's rights. Abortion in the case of say, rape? No, that's state's rights. Right to die or end the life of a brain dead loved-one, state's rights.

But here they're ready to have the big bad evil federal government cast their net wider regardless of whatever legislation a particular state has in place. If Rhode Island says it's okay for pedo felon psychotic nudists to get a concealed weapon permit, by damn that's good enough for every state. I'd say it's ironic if this didn't happen all the time.

TheTurtle

The entire time I was reading this I had the mental image of our founding fathers waiting in line to B!tch Slap every member of the "Brady Bunch".

FINALLY!




I see Carolyn and states like CA, New York, and New Jersey to be more of an insult to the Constitution and every Americans rights than this bill could ever be.

mgraffam

Uhm. This is nonsense.

The Constitution obviously includes the 2nd Amendment. It is the Federal government's job to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights. The powers NOT DELEGATED to the Federal government fall to the States, and the People.

Emissions standards have no Constitutional authority, therefore under the TRUE governance of the Republic, that authority falls to the States. Whereas, a well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is the Federal government's job to insure the security of the nation. One of the ways it does this is to run the military, and therefore by Constitutional mandate, it also has the responsibility to ensure the the right of the People to act as a check against a military coup shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the Republic from the military just as much as it is about protecting the People from the government.

The government, in fact, has a responsibility to see to it that the populace is well armed.

It has no such authority, nor responsibility, regarding the other issues you've mentioned.

Personally, were a public referendum held, I'd likely support an amendment to the Constitution regarding equal rights of all citizens. I'd also likely support an environmental protection amendment.

But true just authority is GIVEN, not taken and neither the States, nor the People have given such authority to the Federal government.. and therefore is has no authority, regardless of my own personal whims or biases.

The Republic is bigger than your or my own personal myopia can allow us to see. Hence, all the checks and balances. It is also why we were never meant to have democracy.

NukMed

You beat me to it.

The federal government should stay within it's sphere as set forth in the Constitution. Leave the rest to the people and the states.

45.308

I support the Speech Control Act of 2011, if you are under the age of 21 you do not have any right to free speech therefor you cannot speak any words until you turn 21, once you are of legal age, when you want to speak out, show up in front of a local judge, fill out a form, the form must list what words you want to speak, the judge will call into the FBI to search if you have any speech history against your information listed of the form, does not matter if your name matches a known speacher who talked without consistent, so you may get delayed to speech. If you want to talk concealed to the public, register for a class on how to speak, get your training certificate, go to your local trooper station or court house and obtain a permit to speak freely while not having full public listening to what you have to speak.

Speech Control ACt of 2012, there are certain words in our language that are more offensive to some and have hurt feelings, so, this new Act will put restrictions on certain words we deem offensive to the public to protect them, to speak them, you must fill out a form, have it notarized, pay $200 as a tax, send off the form to BWSF who will examine the form over 4 months, ensure the words listed are good, give you a number on the form that must be carried at all times when you want to use just these words listed on the form. If certain states feel these words are too offensive, you may not use these words inside their state.

Just because as a state dislikes certain freedoms, each state can take it upon itself to squelch all speech under the disguise of protecting citizens. God forbid a 12 year old youth gets his tongue on 4 letter words and uses them in public. Why would we punish the crime, as the legislative body of said state, I want to infringe upon any one partaking in speech, for protecting youths from hearing or having access to such words, lets create laws to protect (infringe) them speaking.


Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

CC permit is infringing.


The Brady Handgun Control Act

Public Law 103-159
H.R. 1025 - 103rd Congress

Is infringing.


The Gun Control Act of 1968

Is infringing.


National Firearms Act of 1934

Is infringing.


The 1870s city laws.

Infringed.

rudyman

all this talk of fed vs. states rights ....what about individual rights ??? the feds should investigate states that do not allow concealed carry for civil rights abuse just my 2 cents worth.

Hgunner

Guys this is not a good thing, once you get the FEDS involved what they grant they can take away. Besides everything they touch or get invilved in goes to hell, what makes you think the outcomes from this will be different.
Next will be Training Standards, probably expensive and impossible for a lot of people to afford or pass. I can see all kinds of evil and interference and infringements coming if this Camel gets it's nose under the tent.


Besides State to State reciprocity in not that complicated.
Stay out of the PRK,PRI and the Northest PR states. Note: Peoples Republic

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

CAVman

Hgunner...

I do fully understand your and other guys' objections and concerns regarding this proposed Bill...
However, let me point out...

The NRA and essentially every Major Pro-Gun Group SUPPORTS IT!

Every Pro-RKBA/2nd Amendment Senator and Congressperson Supports It!

The Brady Group And Like-Minded Asshats STRONGLY OPPOSE IT!

So...Conceding That Your Concerns Eventually, Ultimately MAY Be Proven To Be Justified...And Only Time Will Tell On That!...It's Still Very, Very Likely To Pass!

So...Unless You Can Rally All The 'Naysayers'(No Insult Intended)To ACTIVELY OPPOSE This Bill Supported By PRO-Guns Folks, And OPPOSED By ANTI-Gunners...
(Which Apparently Is Something They Do NOT Do...)
It's Still Gonna Pass!

Just Saying...

CAVman in WYoming

54321

If the Senate passes it and Obama signs it.....


IT aint good.

Hgunner

I doubt it will pass the Senate or BO will sign it, but if they do, then you will know for sure they have plans big plans.

It just amazes me, look at the situation today, the loss of freedoms due to the "War on Drugs", the War of Terror" and 300,000 plus infractions and regulations the FED's now have on the books.
And what in the frick'in name of Sanity makes people think this is a good thing. When the FED's get involved it is to control and regulate and raise revenue FRICK"IN PERIOD.
This will only lead to the eventual loss of current freedoms we maintain in this area. Be afraid, very afraid if this passes and I don't give 2 cents what the NRA says. Use your common sense, if you do then your gut will tell you this is bad news.

RAMMAC

Here are some comments from Gun Owners of America

Their original opposition to the bill is based on the following points:

LemmyCaution

This, in fact, can not happen. The VT Supreme Court ruled in 1903 in State v. Rosenthal that any legislation to restrict the right of the citizens of VT to keep and bear arms runs afoul of the 16th article of the state constitution. Vermont could not adopt permitting, even if it wanted to.

Which is a good thing because what I see coming, if HR822 should make it into law, is the federal government via executive order requiring all states to adopt uniform permitting standards. The carrot would be reciprocity. The stick would likely be withholding highway, education, or health care funds.

Were that to happen, the state would roll over immediately. Then they would find themselves on the losing end of a law suit.

DukeRustfield

Well, reciprocity exists for quite a few things. Such as driver's licenses. It would be pretty lame if you wanted to drive from state to state and had to have a license in each state you visited. Likewise, most states view the marriages conducted in other states as valid, that way you don't have to keep getting re-married every time you move--though numerous states have invalidated that condition for same sex (again, the conservative Right bleating about state's rights).

This is just reciprocity for concealed carry. But it's still a state's right issue. The 2nd amendment had jack to do with concealed weapons. The concept wouldn't even exist until decades after the amendment was written.