1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

HR 822 your thoughts...

Discussion in 'Shooting Related Threads' started by rpeerless, Oct 11, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    From what I read, NRA is strongly in favor of this bill but the National Association for Gun Rights is opposed. HR 822 is the National Receprocity Act.

    NRA favors the right to carry to all states...

    Gun Rights favors right to carry to all states but does not want Federal regulation that goes with it...ie only police, federal law enforcement would only be allowed federal carry permits..

    Did I get this right? Your comments...
     
  2. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,399
    Location:
    S-E PA
    I point you to the web site and news letter done by Stephen Wenger. I suggest we all read his writings - he makes some interesting points...

    To summarize his position (hopefully) he suggests that having the Fed involved in who does and does not have a gun (vis-a-vis national CCW) is NOT a good thing.

    If challenged with the idea that drivers licenses are valid in all fifty states he responds that this is by compact between the states - there is no federal role in play.

    I provide this e-mail - I think it does a better job than I.

    I have placed "#%# " before my comments - line by line with Steve's answers intermingled.

    I hope he does not mind me sharing this - bit he explains this in a much better fashion than I could.

    David D






    #%# Dear Mr.Wenger,


    Mr. Wenger was my father. I answer to "Stephen" or "Steve."


    #%# I am a new visitor to your web site. i appreciate what you are doing, and I love your favorite quotes section.


    I trust you have noticed a Jeffersonian bias and a tendency to ignore what I view as the disingenuity of the the authors of The Federalist. ;-)


    #%# You have been mentioned as less than a strong advocate for a national 'right to carry' law. As the argument has been presented to me many are afraid that a system of NATIONAL licensing would be a bad thing, they site your reference to Barbara Boxer and "Common Sense Concealed Firearms Act 2011" as a big negative for this.


    It would be more accurate to cite me as a vocal opponent of such federal legislation.


    #%# My understanding of the proposals for nation concealed carry is more one of enforcing article four of the Constitution and demanding the 'Full faith and credit' be afforded to concealed carry licenses across state lines as it is to driver's or marriage licenses.


    There is a great deal of misunderstanding of the full-faith-and-credit clause, which was interned to apply primarily to decisions from the courts of the various states. The erroneous citation of nationwide recognition of driver licenses makes a good teaching point. Rather than being a constitutional Seuss, this is actually the result of a compact among the states. This compact originated as a means to prevent a driver who had lost his license in one state from obtaining a replacement in another state (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact). Consider this: In my home state of Arizona, conviction of a simple DUI* would not result in the loss of the now-optional CWP, but it would in some other states. Who determines if the standards will be the most lax or the most strict in the nation?

    * Arizona does classify some forms of DUI as felonies, which would not only result in the revocation of the CWP but also in the driver becoming a prohibited possessor.


    #%# My take is that these are two distinct issues. One is a Federal licensing scheme that becomes a form of backdoor gun owner registration that allows for capricious application of a federally created standard (vis-a-vis BATFE's 'sporting firearms' definition) versus a mandate that the States need to respect article four of the constitution and allow reciprocity for licensing.


    My concern is not so much over the "backdoor registration" (what is the 4473?) but the establishment of federal standards for issuance, much like in the sometimes cited LEOSA analogy. In order for a retiree to qualify for LEOSA, he must annually "qualify" to the standard of the state in which he retired or the state in which he resides - depending on where he chooses to maintain his certification. What about the guy who retired medically and is confined to a wheelchair? Should he be barred from carrying - if his state does not have constitutional carry or shall-issue - because he can no longer meet the standard at 25 yards? Aren't his needs more likely to be to counter threats within seven yards or less?

    I have been making this argument for several years but Barbara Boxer's bill recently made it that much easier for me. Once the feds have their foot in the door, as soon as the Democrats hold the trifecta (House, Senate, White House), there is nothing to stop them from amending a nationwide-recognition law to include standards for permit issuance, including costly medical and psychological testing (as we see in Ventura County CA), LE-level "qualification" and, most pernicious, certification of need. But the states could ignore the mandate, you say. Yeah, just like the 55 mph speed limit. States could ignore it, at the cost of federal highway funds. In a similar manner, the feds would simply withhold law-enforcement-assistance funds.


    #%# In advance, thank you for your time, and please keep up the work you are doing.

    It's always nice to hear that the effort is appreciated. The best thanks I can get for the mailings is to have them read.

    Stay free and stay in touch!
    --
    Stephen P. Wenger, KE7QBY

    Firearm safety - It's a matter
    for education, not legislation.

    The tactics and skills to use a firearm
    in self-defense don't come naturally
    with the right to keep and bear arms.

    <http://www.spw-duf.info>http://www.spw-duf.info
     
  3. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    Thank you for such a thorough response.

    From this I can gather in a nutshell:

    That anyone who cares about their right to carry at all should oppose HR 822.

    The permit process should remain with the States and not the Fed. Govt. and avoid federal standards for issuance.

    Don't buy into the analogy of drivers licenses and marriage licenses. This is not the same.

    There are other ways to pursue 'national concealed carry'.

    Please contact your representatives to oppose this bill.
     
  4. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
  5. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Extremely dangerous legislation because it gives feds potential control over state concealed carry licensing requirements. This could easily backfire with enough anti-gun votes (liberals and RINOs) and an anti-gun liberal or RINO president. One of the first things on the anti's wish list is to get rid of "shall issue" permits, and go back to citizens being at the whim of politically motivated police chiefs and sheriffs.

    No thanks. I do not support this, and shame on the NRA for not thinking this dangerous legislation through. They could wind up with a membership backlash like their fumbled FOPA'86 fiasco.
     
  6. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    NRA = Insurance Company IMHO. Who would they want to carry? Think liability.
     
  7. jim brown

    jim brown Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,158
    Location:
    Nebraska
    I will not dismiss or oppose the position of the NRA based upon the opinions of Mr. Wenger. There are many wild eyed fanatics out there saying things which don't pass the sniff-kick test. I came to this dance with the NRA and I will go home with them. They have taken us a long way.


    jim brown
     
  8. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    NRA Member, really like some of their programs and aspired to become an instructor, but I don't always agree with what they do...

    The Second Amendment is the protector of the Constitution. Chip away at it and we will have chaos.
     
  9. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    Just read NRA ILA latest report and found that they have refuted the negative claims about HR 822, meanwhile the National Gun Rights people are calling for action against the "Trojan horse" bill.
    I would say oppose it until we know more.

    How do we get together on the real story behind this?
     
  10. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    Brian,

    Recently read an article dated 9/27/2011 by John Velleco on Human Events, Guns and Pats, Concealed Carry Recognition Bill.

    While I believe the bill orginally started out twenty years ago as a good thing for gun owners, I firmly believe that nothing good will come out of this administration and to believe that it would is like believing in magic beans.

    In the NRA ILA update, it is stated and I quote, " The bill, as originally written, was successfully amended at the outset of the markup with a substitute that added a number of important protections."

    What a tricky statement. The bill as orginally written, yeah, but read the rest. It is amended with a substitute!

    There in lies the problem! And the problem may be the reason for this:

    From: Dudley Brown [dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org]
    Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:54 PM
    Subject: Urgent action needed



    Please call these numbers and demand that H.R. 822 be defeated at all costs:


    Rep. Lamar Smith R-TX 202-225-4236
    Rep. Trent Franks R-AZ 202-225-4576
    Rep. Darrell Issa R-CA 202-225-3906
    Rep. Benjamin Quayle R-AZ 202-225-3361
    Rep. Tim Griffin R-AZ 202-225-2506
    Rep. Dan Lungren R-CA 202-225-5716
    Rep. Elton Gallegly R-CA 202-225-5811
    Rep. Dennis Ross R-FL 202-225-1252
    Rep. Sandy Adams R-FL 202-225-2706
    Rep. Mike Pence R-IN 202-225-3021
    Rep. Steve King R-IA 202-225-4426
    Rep. Howard Coble R-NC 202-225-3065
    Rep. Jim Jordan R-OH 202-225-2676
    Rep. Steve Chabot R-OH 202-225-2216
    Rep. Tom Marino R-PA 202-225-3731
    Rep. Trey Gowdy R-SC 202-225-6030
    Rep. Louie Gohmert R-TX 202-225-3035
    Rep. Ted Poe R-TX 202-225-6565
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz R-UT 202-225-7751
    Rep. Bob Goodlatte R-VA 202-225-5431
    Rep. Randy Forbes R-VA 202-225-6365
    Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. R-WI 202-225-5101
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.