Letter to Senators re: HR 822

[Caribou]

Here is my letter to my Senators regarding HR 822. Please, write to your Senators. Ask your friends to write. Post your letters here so that others may pick the best points to include in their letters.



Please do all you can to pass HR 822. Time and time again some tourist is thrown in jail in NYC and other places for having a gun. These are people licensed to carry in their home State. These people have been vetted as good guys.

A nurse sworn to help people will lose her license and serve 3.5 to 15 years because she saw a sign at ground zero saying no guns. She then did what she thought was right by asking where she could store he gun. How many people will die because she is not able to help them for the next 30+ years? How many nurses are working overtime now to cover the hours she can't work because she is in jail? How many of these nurses will make life threatening mistakes because they are over tired? Thousands die in hospitals every year due to mistakes, do we really want to make it worse?

A Veteran that had served in Iraq that is now going to serve 3.5 to 15 years for what, carrying a gun at ground zero? A man that fought to avenge 9/11 can't be trusted with a licensed gun at ground zero? This is not an NYC monument it is a National Monument. This was not an attack on NYC it was an attack on America. Why does NYC even have jurisdiction there?

These are good people who made a simple mistake. You have the power to right this wrong. Thank you for you assistance.

 

[CharonPDX]

That is an excellent letter. I especially like the direct mention of the nurse at 9/11 trying to do the right thing.

I've already sent my senators a letter in support, but I think I'll send another one based on this now; thanks.

 

[mappow]

Excellent, glad to see others engaging. Keep up the good work!

 

[NCIC105]

Sent my Letters to Graham and DeMint.

 

[BluesStringer]

First let me say that I agree 100% with the OP's (et al) rationale concerning the nurse and Iraq vet in the news right now while writing to your (our) representatives. An extreme injustice is being foisted upon both of them.

However, I am not as convinced as most here seem to be that H.R. 822 is the right solution for strong 2nd Amendment supporters.

I believe that every person in America who is concerned with preserving and protecting any of our rights should join organizations whose agendas closely match our own. The big-guy on the block is indeed the NRA when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. However, I've had a couple of real problems with NRA in recent years over specific issues, and GOA more closely represents my own beliefs about how best to preserve, protect, pursue and promote the 2nd Amendment, so I turn to GOA for my information anymore. I would like to offer their concerns over 822 and ask y'all to consider and compare them in relation to either the NRA's take, or the ideas expressed in the OP's letter to their Senators. I will bold the points that I am most concerned about in relation to either the constitutional questions involved, or the threats that GOA articulate in regards to potential future actions of gun-unfriendly states if 822 is signed into law.

Here's a link to the article from which I am excerpting.

Thursday, 17 November 2011 06:57

The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.

The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.

Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation.

​

*It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
​

​

*By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
​

​

*In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
​

​

*The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

​

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”

Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.

“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.

“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”

Anti-gun Amendment Passes

One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:

“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.

Now please, this post in no way is intended to bash the NRA or the OP or anyone who supports HR 822. I simply believe the concerns raised by the GOA alert above should be considered before either lending or denying support for the bill. The points made are worthy of discussion, and I haven't seen them given voice on this forum in the HR 822 threads I've stumbled upon. So, how about we discuss them?

Blues

 

[CharonPDX]

While yes, full "constitutional carry" at the Federal level would be preferred, I know it's not going to happen right now. So rather than put up with the current situation until the perfect situation is implemented - I'm a realist who is more than willing to accept any improvement to the current situation when we can get it.

And I prefer the Second Amendment Foundation to the NRA.

 

[BluesStringer]

While yes, full "constitutional carry" at the Federal level would be preferred, I know it's not going to happen right now. So rather than put up with the current situation until the perfect situation is implemented - I'm a realist who is more than willing to accept any improvement to the current situation when we can get it.

Actually, my perception is that GOA reluctantly takes the same tack. It's rare that I get an alert from them like I posted above that lists serious drawbacks, both constitutional and enforcement-related, where they don't take a firm opposition stand to the policy/legislation. In fact, I think this is the first one I've ever seen from them that doesn't advise support or opposition, and just articulates the potential problems with it that they've identified. If they don't actively oppose it and advise of their members the same, then they tacitly support it. That's disappointing.

I personally see things differently. History bears out my contention that a law like this will only serve to weaken the 2nd Amendment in the long run. The creation of a federal database of gun users/carriers is not only a possible consequence of passing this law, but a highly probable one. Just what we need - Eric Holder having nationwide authority over permit issuance, and that's what it will come to. Knowing that bunch, there's no reason to believe that they'll wait for a law that opens the door to that level of federal intrusion, so I fail to see why we would support codifying such intrusive extra-constitutional authority into law. They're doing everything they can to side-step the Constitution anyway. Why throw the door open for them? That's what I see this piece of Trojan Horse legislation doing. I will not support it.

Blues