Birch Knoll
Member
Considering that they'd already be prohibited from even possessing firearms, I would think that the least of those person's worries would be that they'd no longer be authorized to carry under the terms of HR822.
H.R. 822 Carry Reciprocity Bill
- Thread starter Cavalier Knight
- Start date
- Status
Considering that they'd already be prohibited from even possessing firearms, I would think that the least of those person's worries would be that they'd no longer be authorized to carry under the terms of HR822.
230therapy
Member
Rail Driver
Member
230therapy: While the article is about HR 822, it does the same thing that several people in this thread are doing... Reading things into it that simply aren't there in the text of the bill as passed. Also, it's a "drive by link"... What is your opinion on the matter?
Lone_Sheep_Dog
Member
Some of you are really paranoid. The NRA totally supports this legislation. If there was anything at all threatening our gun rights, the lawyers for the NRA would find it and the NRA would not support it. This legislation will be great if it becomes law. The NRA says that the anti-gun amendments in this legislation were defeated or removed.
Prince Yamato
Member
Yep. People are literally inventing things that this bill is capable of. Oh, by the way, did you hear that this bill requires all of us to have a chip implanted in our brain, whereby the ATF can instantly check up on our 4473 status? Also, it will slow down NFA transfer times by 3 months and cause Saiga 12s to be moved to the destructive device list.
Birch Knoll
Member
Aw, I hate it when that happens!
FIVETWOSEVEN
Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2009
- Messages
- 5,146
So you're telling me that the FBI can't find out if I have a permit if they started to investigate me for whatever reason but with this database they suddenly can?
So people that can't carry or own a gun legally won't be able to carry a gun legally? That add on about counseling isn't in the bill either way and anti gun legislation has been pushed all the time without success.
230therapy
Member
As soon as the Federal government takes this power, they will start adding conditions based upon the commerce clause. They're currently using the commerce clause (GCA 1968, etc) to restrict the Second Amendment. This obviously violates the original intent of the Constitution.
The actual issue is whether or not states should honor permits from all other states. I believe drivers licenses are accepted by mutual agreement, not Federal mandate. Frankly, I see no reason to use Federal power to mandate state acceptance of anything since the states are still sovereign.
Birch Knoll
Member
So you don't believe the Second Amendment does this already? The State's sovereign powers do not extend to restricting the rights of the people under the Federal Constitution, do they?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
I didn't say there was. There will be in other bills, though, like Schumer's S 436. For an example of how that works, the Lautenburg Amendment made gun owners who had misdemeanor abuse records into prohibited persons ex post facto. Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to usurp the Constitution.
Woody
Rail Driver
Member
That's what I'm trying to figure out, Bubba... I suppose there are varying levels of paranoia present in everybody's life, and some topics generate more than others. This is one of them.
Duck and cover!
Duck and cover!
Prince Yamato
Member
That makes three of us. I like the tin foil fedora.
Ole Humpback
Member
No state I know of will do that.
Now we get into defining the law as it is written. That is a sticky wicket because some parts of the Constitution still aren't defined. Reasonable search with probable cause, a 4th Amendment Right, wasn't legally defined until 1961 in Mapp v Ohio. The SCOTUS ruled that if evidence of a crime, irregardless of the crime committed, was found in an area that wasn't reasonable to expect that kind of evidence to be found in (ie you have stolen a 72" big screen and the police search your medicine cabinet for the TV and find your unmarked bottle of hydrocodone) that the evidence was to be thrown out. However; if during that same search for the TV they find that same bottle of hydrocodone sitting out in the open where anyone can see it, then you're hosed. The 4th Amendment's probable cause portion was written & ratified by the States in the late 1770's to early 1780's and was never legally definied until almost 200yrs later. In fact, if you look at cases involving the definition of the 4th Amendment, its been heavily defined in multiple cases in the 1960's.
If you believe that 435 Representatives, 100 Senators, the President & Vice President, and the 9 Justices of the Supreme Court will get it all right in this day & age as far as writing laws go, I have some prime real estate on the moon to sell you.
Exactly. Currently the BATF has no "direct" control over the issuance of Concealed Carry permits. Sure, they have a list of people who can't own a firearm or get a permit, but they also aren't the ones writing the rule book for the Concealed Carry permits or laws either. That job is currently being fielded by the states themselves. HR 822 allows the federal gov't to declare reciprocity for a permit issued in one state to be legal in any other state. While that is all fine & well, its the precedent that it sets that isn't all fine and well.
The precedent that HR 822 would set is that it allows the federal gov't DIRECT control over one aspect of Concealed Carry. Now while you all might not mind this, they will seek to use this bill as a jumping off point to get control over another aspect, then another, then another, until finally you have the BATF running the show and writing the rules for how everyone is supposed to get a Concealed Carry permit. Don't believe me, look at how the Patriot Act, a completely unconstitutional piece of legislation, has grown. All the gov't has to do to lock you up and throw away the key now is say you are a terrorist, regardless of probable cause. Not too long ago a 14yr old was taken by the FBI from his bedroom in his parents house by force at 3am and he has never been seen or heard from again because the FBI wiretapped his PC and saw what APPEARED to be terrorist chats taking place from his computer.
Or for a more modern & focused approach, lets look at the 20th century as far as gun control goes: 1934 National Firearms Act, 1968 Gun Control Act, 1986 Hughes Amendment to the 1968 GCA, 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 1994-2004 AWB. One built upon the other as precedent after precedent was set. In order to undo the precedent, a new one has to be set, which we got with Heller in 2008 & McDonald in 2010. We have a long way to go to undo the damage of last century & supporting legislation that would provide the vehicle to cause more damage is just screwy.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Bubba613 said:
Because of the way it does it.
Woody
Birch Knoll
Member
What's the right way for Congress to do it?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
ttolhurst said:
Simple. Force the several states to remove all their law infringing upon the RKBA, and prohibit the several states to enforce any portion of any other law in any fashion that could be construed to infringe upon the RKBA such as taxing the sales of arms, and back it up with appropriate penalties on the several states that do not comply; and criminal charges with jail time and fines for any state or local official - elected, appointed, or hired - who breaks that law. Congress has the power to do this in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Woody
Rail Driver
Member
Ideally, this is one of the goals.
You're probably referring specifically to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment, or §1. Yes, §5 gives congress to enforce this via legislation, however congress (and the supreme court) have shown that the Federal Government won't be pushed to enforce any law they choose not to, such as our immigration laws (google arizona immigration). I don't know about you, but I think we are doing about the best we can with what we've got to work with right now, and these things must be taken one step at a time. Sure the ideal situation would be to have all anti-gun legislation and anything infringing our rights to be repealed, but see if you can even get that bill introduced and you'll see what we're all talking about. We have to do things the same way the anti-gunners do, and take our rights back bit by bit. Sneaking pro-gun amendments into unrelated legislation, flooding the media with pro-gun advertisement, protests, letter writing campaigns, and so on are all good ways to do it, but arguing against pro-gun legislation is NOT the way to do it.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Rail Driver said:
When I see pro-gun-rights legislation, I'll support it. This legislation - HR 822 - is not pro-gun-rights legislation. It's faux pro-gun-rights legislation. It's pro-gun-rights deception. It does not remove one infringement on the RKBA. It's a placation to shut people up. It's an attempt to remove the gun rights issue from the table. It's an ex post facto vehicle to take carry permits away from certain people when the list of prohibited persons gets expanded just like the Lautenberg Amendment accomplished.
HR 822 is not a grass roots endeavor like the call for the removal of infringements is. That alone should make everyone suspicious. As for "the best we can do," the best we can do is make better choices at the ballot box.
Woody
FadingSwordsman
Member
That actually does quite a bit to open state gun issues to the feds...
For example, if the Firearms Freedom Acts are enforceable currently, then the law you propose opens them up to Federal interference.
N003k
Member
Okay, here's a few questions.
Does anyone here HONESTLY THINK that HR822 will allow a congress that's anti gun to more easily pass a law that they want passed, as opposed to if it didn't exist?
Would it make an AWB any easier to pass? How?
Would it make another GCA that's even stricter any easier to pass? How?
How does this set a precedent of allowing the feds to regulate the 2nd amendment ANY more than the AWB did? Or the GCA? Or the NFA? They cover what you can own (AWB did, and NFA does.) Where you can carry? (Can't carry on Federal property, except for the parks they ALLOW you to carry on now.)
They might not cover HOW yet, but, does this law REALLY make it any easier for them to cover that? Does anyone REALLY think that a strong anti-gun congress with an anti-gun president couldn't pass a bill outlawing Concealed Carry? Especially if there ends up being an anti-gun supreme court?
IN DETAIL, (Not just say 'precedent' because there's ALREADY precedents for federal controls) how does THIS LAW make ANYTHING any easier for the feds?
Does anyone here HONESTLY THINK that HR822 will allow a congress that's anti gun to more easily pass a law that they want passed, as opposed to if it didn't exist?
Would it make an AWB any easier to pass? How?
Would it make another GCA that's even stricter any easier to pass? How?
How does this set a precedent of allowing the feds to regulate the 2nd amendment ANY more than the AWB did? Or the GCA? Or the NFA? They cover what you can own (AWB did, and NFA does.) Where you can carry? (Can't carry on Federal property, except for the parks they ALLOW you to carry on now.)
They might not cover HOW yet, but, does this law REALLY make it any easier for them to cover that? Does anyone REALLY think that a strong anti-gun congress with an anti-gun president couldn't pass a bill outlawing Concealed Carry? Especially if there ends up being an anti-gun supreme court?
IN DETAIL, (Not just say 'precedent' because there's ALREADY precedents for federal controls) how does THIS LAW make ANYTHING any easier for the feds?
ConstitutionCowboy
member
FadingSwordsman said:
That statement needs a little clarification. In what way(s) would the feds be interfering with what?
Woody
ConstitutionCowboy
member
It doesn't matter. HR 822 is unconstitutional to begin with.
Woody
- Status
