As H.R.822 makes its way through the House of Representatives and most of the anti-gun ammendments were knocked down, it still leaves open, if passed, a way for liberals and democrats in the federal government to gain control of the requirements not only for reciprocity but for individual gun owners in each state making it more and more difficult for each of us to protect ourselves in keeping with the Second Ammendment. We each need to contact our congressmen and congresswomen to make sure the bill is written so as this scenario cannot occur.
H.R. 822 is still troublesome
- Thread starter demory
- Start date
Deserteagle
New member
I dont know if I like this bill. Sure it would be nice to be able to carry in every state, but I dont go CA or NY or IL anyway so I dont care. The feds will also be able to attach even more strict laws on where you can carry compared to the restrictions currently made by states, and the feds will make laws on how you can carry as well.
The federal government could be using their time more wisely by challenging states like IL, NY, and CA that outright violate the constitution.
The federal government could be using their time more wisely by challenging states like IL, NY, and CA that outright violate the constitution.
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
I am completely against HR 822 for a number of reasons. First, it is not needed because we have the 2nd. Second, it gives the feds authority over states to dictate the rules of carry and eligibility to carry. These rules will only get tougher and make it almost impossible to carry. Third, it removes the ability for states to decide for themselves what is best for their citizens.
I feel sorry for those that live in ignorant states that ignore the Constitution, but I don't want the feds, who are notoriously anti-gun, to get involved. There is more to this than we now see, and will lead in the end to more gun control. The obvious reason the states have not absolutely rejected this is because they know it will lead to more gun control, of which govt at every level is in favor.
Any time a govt shows a positive feeling towards guns and carry, something's up. And let's call this what it is, Federal Gun Control.
I feel sorry for those that live in ignorant states that ignore the Constitution, but I don't want the feds, who are notoriously anti-gun, to get involved. There is more to this than we now see, and will lead in the end to more gun control. The obvious reason the states have not absolutely rejected this is because they know it will lead to more gun control, of which govt at every level is in favor.
Any time a govt shows a positive feeling towards guns and carry, something's up. And let's call this what it is, Federal Gun Control.
Bighouse Doc
New member
Go ahead carry in New York and tell them that when they stick you in a cell with the city's lowest!
-Doc
J
JSDinTexas
Guest
NY is one of the states that doesn't believe in or follow the Constitution. Obviously.
Iam2Taz
New member
That is why we don't need this bill. People continue to put up with the crap in NY and other states. We need to take the states and the courts back.
kardar2
kardar2
Hr822
well okay I see both sides but It would help with the ignorant states Such as CA (which I live in) By most states that are pro gun states can help us with the votes in DC. But you are Right if you want something screwed up let the Government get a hold of it. So As I can see there are two sides to it. let us just pray that it goes in our favor which ever that way it go.
well okay I see both sides but It would help with the ignorant states Such as CA (which I live in) By most states that are pro gun states can help us with the votes in DC. But you are Right if you want something screwed up let the Government get a hold of it. So As I can see there are two sides to it. let us just pray that it goes in our favor which ever that way it go.
mncarrydude
New member
So misinformed. Go to the NRA-ILA'S web site and LOOK at what this bill is. States retain the right to establish their laws, the feds have no say in a state by state basis. Also no fed registry. The bill is what it is and the NRA will keep it that way.
I'm not misinformed, I know history.
Currently the federal government has no say in any state's ccw laws.Once they pass a law that involves interstate ccw they can start dictating what the ccw laws are.
The current law has nothing objectionable, but I promise, once the federal government gets involved they will take control.
Don't believe me? Look at the history of our school systems, or highways. The feds have no right to put any regulations or requirements for either, but once they convinced the naive public that they were there to help and the states surrendered some control to them they, took over.
My bet is that if this passes, states with more requirements to obtained a permit/license will complained that they do not want to recognized the less restrictive states. So the feds will set a 'minimum standard'. Once they start setting these standards it will just snowball to a nightmare of restrictions.
Never ever give any control to the federal government.
Just to be clear, I am not anti-government, I just believe that legislation should be as local as possible.
Currently the federal government has no say in any state's ccw laws.Once they pass a law that involves interstate ccw they can start dictating what the ccw laws are.
The current law has nothing objectionable, but I promise, once the federal government gets involved they will take control.
Don't believe me? Look at the history of our school systems, or highways. The feds have no right to put any regulations or requirements for either, but once they convinced the naive public that they were there to help and the states surrendered some control to them they, took over.
My bet is that if this passes, states with more requirements to obtained a permit/license will complained that they do not want to recognized the less restrictive states. So the feds will set a 'minimum standard'. Once they start setting these standards it will just snowball to a nightmare of restrictions.
Never ever give any control to the federal government.
Just to be clear, I am not anti-government, I just believe that legislation should be as local as possible.
Not true
Not true, this legislation opens up ccw laws to federal control that is not possible now.
The federal government government cannot pass any laws dictating how states handle ccw within the state. Once a law is passed regulating interstate, they can get involved. The law is a Pandora's box, if it passes it will at best be a source of fighting for years to come. At worst, I don't want to sound paranoids but this is worst case, this could mean the end of broadly available ccw.
I seldom disagree with the NRA's position on firearms legislation, but in this case they are being very short sighted.
spdracr39:236241 said:
Not true, this legislation opens up ccw laws to federal control that is not possible now.
The federal government government cannot pass any laws dictating how states handle ccw within the state. Once a law is passed regulating interstate, they can get involved. The law is a Pandora's box, if it passes it will at best be a source of fighting for years to come. At worst, I don't want to sound paranoids but this is worst case, this could mean the end of broadly available ccw.
I seldom disagree with the NRA's position on firearms legislation, but in this case they are being very short sighted.
Bighouse Doc
New member
Bighouse Doc:236428 said:
Like I said it is not the current text.
I am sure the states with more restrictive requirements to get a permit/license will not want to recognize the less restrictive states.
A specific example is in some states the age for a permit is 18 and other states it is 21. The states with the 21 age will pressure congress to make an age 21 requirement on all states.
A clear example of where this has already happened, the federal government has no authority to set DUI standards, but because of highway funding laws, they have been able to set a required .08 BAC limit. (BTW: I believe the standard should be a much lower BAC , but this should be set at the state level not the federal level).
I'm on my phone so it is difficult to look up the quote, but LBJ said something to the affect of, don't judge a law on what it should do in the hands of honest men, but what it can do when abused by dishonest men.
brolin1911a1
New member
A Better Bill -- HR2900
What i don't understand is why the NRA is pushing H.R. 822, a bill that requires a person to have a state-issued license and which does nothing for anyone in states like Illinois when H.R. 2900 is available and actually does what H.R. 822 is only claimed to do.
Link Removed
That's it. If you live in states like Arizona or Vermont, no permit is needed; you can carry concealed anywhere in the USA. Visiting Illinois? Carry is forbidden only in those places specifically banned by state law. Live in Illinois? Then send your money to Florida, Utah or Maine license for a license from one of those states and carry legally in spite of your totalitarian legislature.
H.R. 2900 would actually be a giant step back towards honoring the 2nd Amendment and would be a powerful spur to cause states to reform the difficulty and costs of obtaining one of their own licenses to carry. In fact, since citizens of states which don't require such permits would be able to carry nationwide, it would be a spur to state legislatures to recognize Constitutional carry for their own citizens.
Given the simplicity and lack of problems inherent in H.R. 2900's language I really, really have to question why the nation's major gun rights group is pushing the much more questionable and problematic H.R. 822.
What i don't understand is why the NRA is pushing H.R. 822, a bill that requires a person to have a state-issued license and which does nothing for anyone in states like Illinois when H.R. 2900 is available and actually does what H.R. 822 is only claimed to do.
Link Removed
That's it. If you live in states like Arizona or Vermont, no permit is needed; you can carry concealed anywhere in the USA. Visiting Illinois? Carry is forbidden only in those places specifically banned by state law. Live in Illinois? Then send your money to Florida, Utah or Maine license for a license from one of those states and carry legally in spite of your totalitarian legislature.
H.R. 2900 would actually be a giant step back towards honoring the 2nd Amendment and would be a powerful spur to cause states to reform the difficulty and costs of obtaining one of their own licenses to carry. In fact, since citizens of states which don't require such permits would be able to carry nationwide, it would be a spur to state legislatures to recognize Constitutional carry for their own citizens.
Given the simplicity and lack of problems inherent in H.R. 2900's language I really, really have to question why the nation's major gun rights group is pushing the much more questionable and problematic H.R. 822.
mrjam2jab
New member
Isn't carry banned in the ENTIRE state of IL?
