The TRUTH About H.R. 822: The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011"

[FltMdk]

@jaegan438 Well said! This bill doesn't take away state rights. It simply strong arms them into following the 2nd amendment, as they are suppose to.

[vwgti4]

those who have illegally acquired guns, high on drugs looking to rob and rape!

[vwgti4]

Its funny how anyone can obtain a drivers licence but a vehicle is also considered a deadly weapon, now vehicles are still driven by ppl constantly without the proper training o rpermit, look at the animals who drive in NY and they kill people every second, drugs are out in the streets and if u want them u can get them just like illegal firearms. But if your a law abiding citizen with a permit(CCW) and you've proven yourself apt to carry in your home state you cant travel to another and fend off

[Jamespot24]

with 40 likes no dislikes, you know its awesome!

[otakurj]

To clarify, more on the issue with NYC

[otakurj]

How does this affect NYS as they do not recognize any other state and the fact that a NYS permit holder cannot legally carry into NYC...

[ryantwiggsmith909]

how is this going to pass the senate? or Obama?

[JulietBravoZulu]

No, no, no, no, no, NO, NOOOOO!!!!!! KEEP THE FEDS AWAY FROM CONCEALED CARRY!!! This has WAY TOO MUCH potential for being a trojan horse bill! We already know that the feds don't respect the Constitution. What makes anyone think that the feds are going to respect national carry rights? Do we really want them setting standards for concealed carry as defined by them? Think about it. Let the states have more power, the feds already have way too much! Anything they can give, they can take away.

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu Absolute nonsense. Have you read the bill? I strongly recommend that you do so. Nowhere in this bill is there any additional power given to the Feds. All it does is force the states to recognize all other permits. In fact, it specifically states that state laws regarding locations where guns are prohibited would still apply to all. It sets no criteria or conditions, other than what is already required (non-felon, non drug addict, etc.) to own a firearm to begin with.

[JulietBravoZulu]

@utimmer4300 It's not nonsense at all, and you should be careful what you wish for. It doesn't matter how 2A friendly the bill is as it currently stands. Any bill can be amended, watered down, perverted, and undermined as it moves through congress. The clause that Frank Lautenberg slipped into the '86 Gun Owners Protection Act at the last minute to close the machine gun registry is a good example. We should all know very well by now that Washington is not to be trusted, EVER, period!

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu If you're gonna spout off, at least get your facts straight. The bill passed in '86 was the "Firearm Owners Protection Act". And the amendment you speak of was the Hughs amendment, proposed in the House by Representative William Hughs. Now, aside from shoddy facts, your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. The bill has already withstood attempted anti-gun amendments, which have been soundly defeated. And just what gives you the impression that the antis need a gun bill...

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu ...in order to add an anti-gun amendment? If they wanted to attach an amendment creating a registry, it doesn't need to be to a gun bill. They could attach it to a defense spending bill, an education bill, pretty much any damn bill they wanted to. IF, then when that happens, THAT is when you withdraw your support of the bill. The problem with that back in '86 was the relative nativity of the People at the time. We didn't have the means of communication that we do now.

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu The very moment an anti-gun amendment is proposed to ANY bill, the internet lights up with email alerts from the NRA, GOA, SAF, etc. urging their members to contact their legislators. And the members of those groups are quite fast to do so, as they don't take kindly to anti-gun proposals. But until the anti-gun proposals come up (which again, they already have and were defeated) there isn't any reason to oppose it.

[JulietBravoZulu]

@utimmer4300 Also, Constitutional Carry was just passed in my state, and I don't want to be supporting a bill that would allow Bloomberg's bath house buddies in Washington a fat, juicy opportunity to undermine that. We don't need Washington to "force" the states to do anything. They already force the states to do far too much as it is. We the People have to take it upon ourselves to make our state and local governments pass the laws we want. Forget about the corrupt District of Criminals.

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu And I am glad that your state has passed Constitutional Carry. What about this bill do you believe undermines Constitutional Carry? If this law passes, you will still be allowed to carry without a permit in your state. Now, maybe you wouldn't "benefit" from the bill directly. But some of those Constitutional Carry states (not sure which state you reside in) still require a permit for non-residents. The benefit to you in that situation is that more law-abiding citizens...

[utimmer4300]

@JulietBravoZulu ...will be carrying when they come to visit your state. I think you would agree that any time more of us who are law abiding are armed, the safer we ALL are. I, too, would really see little benefit to this law passing because I have a permit from my home state, and leave the state very rarely. BUT, I do benefit in the sense that someone with a permit from a state that mine does not recognize will now be able to legally arm themselves. So indirectly, I DO benefit from that.

[MrAndrewsiii]

@KJ4MUB: It does not now but it will turn into a bill just like obamacare..........You cannot trust the obama Administration or this Congress...

[Edgrot]

I will tell you what a joke the NRA is. The right to keep and bare arms is about you being armed well enough to fight a opressive state or invading army. The reason you will never see the NRA promote this is because then you would no longer need the NRA.

[ronin2167]

@Edgrot You can say that about any organization. Let's take the NAACP.....it's become a money making scheme. They can't afford to have racism go away...they'd all be out of jobs. Rev Jackson and Al Sharpton make tons of money off of this.

[memerider]

I think we've had an awakening and the genie is out of the bottle. The totalitarians will not find that we the people are the pushovers they expect if they continue to expand the infringement.

[KJ4MUB]

You guys obviously did NOT pay attention to the video! Regardless of what you may "think", the bill DOES NOT create any national registry!!!! How many times does it have to be said??? Law enforcement can ALREADY query each other for info about permit holders. In other words, each State maintains its own records and makes them available to other law enforcement agencies as desired.

[jaegan438]

@KJ4MUB I'm well aware of that, I work in law enforcement.  There's a difference in kind between 50 separate state systems that can query each other, and 1 federal system with all the data. Entirely too much potential for abuse.

[KJ4MUB]

@jaegan438 I am in LE as well, and as Juilet Bravo Zulu mentions, IF and WHEN inappropriate amendments are made to ANY bill, that is when you withdraw your support. There is NO abuse in THIS bill, period. READ IT. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and NATIONAL, and NOT a part of State enumerated powers. Therefore, it is an appropriate Federal issue.

[jaegan438]

Right to Carry is already the law of the land, under the 2nd amendment. Start jailing the politicians who are infringing on that right. We don't need any more laws, nor do we need something which could all too easily become a national gun owner registry under a more tyrannical government. Look back to Cuba when Castro came to power, they already knew who had the guns, so they went and took them away. Such has it been throughout history.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 How on Earth can this lead to registry? It simply mandates that each state recognize each other state's permit. Nothing more. A national registry is expressly prohibited by the FOPA. If we were to have a registry, it would have to be specifically legislated in congress and signed by the president.

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 As evidenced by any number of things lately (Fast & Furious practically leaps to mind), the federal government doesn't particularly care whether what they do is legal these days.  The fact is that ANY national permit becomes a de facto registry of those who have it as gun owners. Anyone who believes otherwise fails to grasp how computer databases work. Whether it is used for that is not relevant to the fact that it could be.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 What you apparently fail to grasp is that this does NOT create a national permit. Each state will still issue their own permits that they already issue, using the same criteria that they already use. READ THE BILL. It simply tells the states that they must recognize each others permits (except for Illinois because they have no permit). Kinda like drivers licenses, each state issues their own using their own set of criteria, but they recognize each others as legitimate.

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 Again, I understand what the bill says, I simply don't trust them to implement it as written.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 By that rationale, no bill should ever be written, nor any law passed, for fear that it will not be implemented as written.

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 I'd be okay with that. IMO we have too many laws as it is.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 The bottom line is this... To oppose a law because of the way it might me implemented is simply foolish. Think of ANY law that you agree with that is constitutional and useful, and then suppose that someone of authority somewhere will not implement it the way it was intended. Do you then oppose the law? Nonsense. You oppose the person who has sworn to uphold the law yet fails to do so. THAT is the problem in this country.

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 "constitutional and useful" I don't agree that this fits either of those categories. I will agree that the politicians are the problem with this country.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 Too many of us who do cherish freedom and our founding documents are complacent, or think that our vote won't make a difference. Add to that a party leadership who thinks they must appeal to the opposing party's base to try to wrestle votes away from them, when in reality they need to stick to constitutional principles and win the support of those who do believe in the Constitution. (Which, despite what the media may have you believe, IS the majority of our countrymen.)

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 Now that, I'll agree with.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 One more thing to consider, if they were going to illegally derive a national registry, they certainly don't need H.R.822 to do it. Or better stated, H.R.822 is no better a pathway to registration than any law that is on the books, or no laws at all. In fact, again by your rational, it could be said that 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a) (the prohibition of a registry) could be used as a pathway to a registry. That simply makes no sense, and face it, neither does your argument against H.R.822.

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I'll stick to mine.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 ...enforcing the law incorrectly FIRED. And that is exactly what needs to happen to any federal executive who would implement a registry outside of the law.

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 ...come to pass will have had a cause other than H.R.822. It is the OTHER cause that we would need to deal with to prevent a registry. Suppose a police officer writes you a ticket for driving the wrong way down a one-way street, even though the street you were driving on wasn't even a one-way street. You don't get rid of all one-way streets just because you MIGHT be falsely accused of driving the wrong way on one. You work to get the officer who is...

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 I'm not really arguing opinions here. To say you don't like something is your opinion, and yes you're entitled to it. What I am arguing is cause and effect, which is not subject to opinion. If a registry were to be compiled (the effect) it will not be due to national reciprocity (the cause). Now, if H.R.822 contained a provision that a registry be compiled, then yes H.R. 822 would have been the cause. But since it does not contain such language, any registration scheme that may

[utimmer4300]

@jaegan438 You say right to carry is already the law of the land. First of all, I would love to see you make that case in Illinois or D.C., which have ZERO carry, or NJ, MD, or HI where it is virtually impossible to obtain a permit. I agree that as defined by the Constitution, everyone has the right to carry. Unfortunately, most states require a permit to do so. Let me ask you... Do you carry? If so, and assuming that you live in a state that requires one, do you have a permit to do so?

[jaegan438]

@utimmer4300 That fact that Illinois, DC, and other jurisdictions are illegally depriving people of their rights does not mean that 2A is not the law of the land. It's "keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" Those are fairly plain English, despite what some people think. I do carry, frequently, and I do have a license. Doesn't mean I agree with it, just means it's easier than being a test case.

[ssace250]

I don't think that it will create a national registry for guns but I do agree that it would create a national registry for Right-To-Carry permit holders. Which in all reality is the only way that they would be able to ensure the validity of the permit. I think it's a fantastic idea. It's insane that as an Idaho permit holder there are only 28 states currently that recognize my permit and that includes Arizona and Vermont that don't have any permit requirements. I should be able to carry anywhere

[MrAndrewsiii]

I think it will be used to create a National data base for guns and guns owners.....you can not trust the obama Administration or this Congress, Pelosi and Reid will change it to be used against gun owners...

[nicijeanevans]

@MrAndrewsiii

Face it, sweety, You (and I) cannot trust ANY politician, of EITHER party to do anything that is in our best interest. !!PERIOD!! (and exclamation).