Now that HR 822 has passed the House of Representatives..

[Phillip Gain]

..we need to do our part to get it to pass the Senate. Sadly, according to this email I received from GOAL, it seems that Senator Brown is not on board with it:

I vividly remember the day GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace came into my office and told me that we were going to help then State Senator Brown get enough signatures on his petition to be included on the ballot for U.S. Senate, the "Kennedy Seat".

At the time I was still a new employee at GOAL and didn't know much about him. That changed rapidly over the next few months as we got out to the clubs, spread the word to our membership, and dared to dream that we might actually have a pro 2A Senator from Massachusetts. Even at our office Christmas party State Senator Brown was still a relative unknown, he came and spoke, shook hands, and told us that he would stand with us, for the Second Amendment. It was great to hear.

Well, the rest is history, the great debate in which he claimed "it's the peoples seat, not the Kennedy seat." and on to the election day, where finally we succeeded, the most unlikely of states, hired a Republican to represent them, a pro 2A one at that.

Fast forward 22 months and here we are, wondering why Senator Brown is against H.R. 822 a very pro 2A piece of legislation. Not only has he come out saying he would vote against it, but he's also giving soundbites that seem to be right out of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns playbook. Did you forget about us Senator Brown?

For this reason, GOAL is asking all of our members to remind Senator Brown that "the people" want H.R. 822 the "National Reciprocity Act" passed in the senate, and we would appreciate his vote on this legislation.

Please contact Scott Brown's Office in Washington D.C. and urge him to vote in favor of H.R. 822 the "National Reciprocity Act" He can be reached at (202) 224-4543.

You can also go to Link Removed for additional contact options.

 

[santa]

I hope that many others will do as you suggest so we can get National reciprocity. I think the votes are there but getting it by the Senate rules will be tough. Perhaps with it being an election year some 'on the fence' Senators will see the benifit of supporting National reciprocity in enhancing their relection chances. I also hope that the gun-owners who have concerns about the proposed law will read it for themselves and see that this is a good law. AND MUCH NEEDED!

 

[HueMan]

It seems "Instructors" want this so it can be a revenue generator for them while destroying gun rights for everyone else. Don't ask me just Google for yourselves to find out how a last minute voice only vote added an addendum that will allow a Federal BioMetric database which will allow the BATFE easy gun grabbing access! It would also make a state like Vermont HAVE to implement a permit system where none is currently needed...Greed smdh

 

[santa]

I support 822 and Im not an instructor. While I do not personally know Phillip Gain I very much doubt that he or any other firearms instructor on this site supported 822 for monetary gain (no pun intended)or are closet Brady gun-control plants. I would like to read the alledged amendment for myself and what is the EXACT wording of the alledged amendment? Vermonters can still get an non-resident permit from another State if they wish.

 

[Unfettered Might]

It seems "Instructors" want this so it can be a revenue generator for them while destroying gun rights for everyone else. Don't ask me just Google for yourselves to find out how a last minute voice only vote added an addendum that will allow a Federal BioMetric database which will allow the BATFE easy gun grabbing access! It would also make a state like Vermont HAVE to implement a permit system where none is currently needed...Greed smdh

I believe your talking about the Hughes amendment to the FOPA. That amendmend was also added illegally, I've seen the video and read the transcript for that day. I like to think we scrutinize Congress's actions better today than back in 86 and for that matter an amendment for anything can be added to any bill.

Observe them closely, but please put the paranoia away people or we might as well not ever have a pro gun bill again with this mentality.

 

[Phillip Gain]

It seems "Instructors" want this so it can be a revenue generator for them while destroying gun rights for everyone else. Don't ask me just Google for yourselves to find out how a last minute voice only vote added an addendum that will allow a Federal BioMetric database which will allow the BATFE easy gun grabbing access! It would also make a state like Vermont HAVE to implement a permit system where none is currently needed...Greed smdh

First off...when you put the word "instructor" in quotes in that context, you are implying that somehow I am not a real instructor. I take offense at that. I've taken the courses, and have been certified by the NRA to instruct Basic Firearm Safety, Basic Pistol, and Personal Protection. I also have my certification from the Mass State Police as well. I assure you, my credentials are genuine, in order, and available for any of my students to see.

Secondly, as an NRA-certified instructor, I can already teach in all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and probably a number of foreign countries too, if I were so inclined. HR 822 does not make a bit of difference in my income.

As someone who travels to visit family all over the place, it would be NICE to not need Utah and Arizona permits to "keep me legal" while carrying during my travels. Not to mention the stupidity of needing ME, NH, CT, and RI permits just to get around New England. Or having to borrow a firearm if I take a shooting course in upstate NY.

Vermont could do exactly what Arizona does. ANYONE (resident or not) may carry without a permit in Arizona. But ANYONE (resident or not) can obtain a "shall issue" Arizona permit for reciprocity purposes. ANYONE in a "constitutional carry" state has the option of obtaining a nonresident permit from a variety of states, at no huge cost.

The "biometric database" is a bunch of hooey. Let's examine the text of the amendment:

1 SEC. 4. GAO STUDY OF THE ABILITY OF STATE AND LOCAL
2 LAW ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THE VALID3
ITY OF OUT-OF-STATE CONCEALED FIRE4
ARMS PERMITS.
5 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Comptroller General of the
6 United States shall conduct a study of the ability of State
7 and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity
8 of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a
9 concealed firearm.
10 (b) REPORT TO THE CONGRESS.—Within 1 year after
11 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller
12 General shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary
13 of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
14 the Judiciary of the Senate a written report which con15
tains the results of the study required by subsection (a).

Basically, the GAO (Government Accounting Office) gets to study how easy or hard it is for state and local law enforcement to verify that someone's permit is valid. How difficult is that? It literally takes one phone call or radio call in most cases.

After a year, the GAO has to report its findings to Congress. While it is remotely possible that they may recommend a "national biometric database," it isn't all that likely. And even if it WERE recommended, it would have to come up for a vote, then the funding would have to be approved; it's not an automatic given.

Don't believe everything that GOA or NAGR or whomever tells you. I don't trust those people one bit, not with the daily sleazy emails they spammed me with for months. The NRA has a far better-proven record, and can afford better attorneys, than GOA or NAGR or whoever.

So if you want to be a 2A purist, holding your breath and stamping your feet, and not accepting SOME progress in the right direction in lieu of the whole ball of wax...BE MY GUEST...and be ready to unload and lock it up every time you venture out of Massachusetts.

Oh, and hope you don't get stopped in NY or NJ, where the federal law is considered an "affirmative defense" for a traveler passing through who is arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. (As oppposed to keeping the traveler from being charged at all, like in any reasonable state.)

HR 822 is not perfect. But it fixes a lot. And it's not the "trojan horse" that those idiots at GOA/NAGR are making it out to be.

 

[Phillip Gain]

PS - one more note about that "biometric database." LET ME ASSURE YOU that when you get your fingerprints taken for a purchase or permit acquisition...those prints don't just sit on a card in the police station. I'll guarantee you they are scanned in short order and sent right to CJIS in Clarksburg, WV. I grew up near there, and have friend working there who are scanning in bunches of fingerprints on a daily basis.

Don't fret about there being a "national biometric database" created. It's already there. And you're already in it.

 

[missoak]

You're welcome to come to MI. We already accept carry permits from all states.

 

[longslide10]

..we need to do our part to get it to pass the Senate. Sadly, according to this email I received from GOAL, it seems that Senator Brown is not on board with it:



You can also go to Link Removed for additional contact options.

And these 2 douchebags:

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wrote President Barack Obama last week urging him to issue a veto threat against the bill. Passing the bill "would jeopardize public safety and would be an insult to states like New Jersey and New York that purposefully have strong gun ownership laws," they wrote.

Link Removed

We all need to contact the Whitehouse and let Maobama know he must pass it....but would he listen.

 

[HueMan]

Vermonters can still get an non-resident permit from another State if they wish.

Why should they have to?

 

[HueMan]

we might as well not ever have a pro gun bill again with this mentality.

Key word is "mental". There is NO way HR 822 can be anything but an open invitation down the road for gun grabbing and if you think different...ok.

 

[HueMan]

First off...when you put the word "instructor" in quotes in that context, you are implying that somehow I am not a real instructor. I take offense at that. I've taken the courses, and have been certified by the NRA to instruct Basic Firearm Safety, Basic Pistol, and Personal Protection. I also have my certification from the Mass State Police as well. I assure you, my credentials are genuine, in order, and available for any of my students to see.

Secondly, as an NRA-certified instructor, I can already teach in all 50 US states, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, and probably a number of foreign countries too, if I were so inclined. HR 822 does not make a bit of difference in my income.

As someone who travels to visit family all over the place, it would be NICE to not need Utah and Arizona permits to "keep me legal" while carrying during my travels. Not to mention the stupidity of needing ME, NH, CT, and RI permits just to get around New England. Or having to borrow a firearm if I take a shooting course in upstate NY.

Vermont could do exactly what Arizona does. ANYONE (resident or not) may carry without a permit in Arizona. But ANYONE (resident or not) can obtain a "shall issue" Arizona permit for reciprocity purposes. ANYONE in a "constitutional carry" state has the option of obtaining a nonresident permit from a variety of states, at no huge cost.

The "biometric database" is a bunch of hooey. Let's examine the text of the amendment:



Basically, the GAO (Government Accounting Office) gets to study how easy or hard it is for state and local law enforcement to verify that someone's permit is valid. How difficult is that? It literally takes one phone call or radio call in most cases.

After a year, the GAO has to report its findings to Congress. While it is remotely possible that they may recommend a "national biometric database," it isn't all that likely. And even if it WERE recommended, it would have to come up for a vote, then the funding would have to be approved; it's not an automatic given.

Don't believe everything that GOA or NAGR or whomever tells you. I don't trust those people one bit, not with the daily sleazy emails they spammed me with for months. The NRA has a far better-proven record, and can afford better attorneys, than GOA or NAGR or whoever.

So if you want to be a 2A purist, holding your breath and stamping your feet, and not accepting SOME progress in the right direction in lieu of the whole ball of wax...BE MY GUEST...and be ready to unload and lock it up every time you venture out of Massachusetts.

Oh, and hope you don't get stopped in NY or NJ, where the federal law is considered an "affirmative defense" for a traveler passing through who is arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm. (As oppposed to keeping the traveler from being charged at all, like in any reasonable state.)

HR 822 is not perfect. But it fixes a lot. And it's not the "trojan horse" that those idiots at GOA/NAGR are making it out to be.

I have no Idea if you are a real instructor or it's just a way to earn a buck. Take it any way you please. If my opinions offend you go get a tissue. I've already been through "well at least it has some positive pro gun rights points" in a P.O.S. legislation in my own state and thank GOD NAGR helped out where the NRA was blind as usual to the real problems and fortunately it was moth balled. I personally detest having to have gov't permission to exercise my 2A rights OC or CC and as i've lost nothing north of the mason/dixon line i don't think i'll be traveling that way. Thanks for your concern however.

 

[dojoman]

Just remember its an election year and Obama can be pretty sure not to get re elected. Having said that, its in my theroy that should this come across his desk and he believes that signing it into law might win him A Lot of votes from the Pro 2 Community he might, might do it. However, lookin at his anti 2nd track record, I'd think he'd vote this down, unless its tided up in a sweet prime holycrap package.........like a huge spending increase? Perhaps?

 

[FN1910]

Why should they have to?

I agree with this but am confused with all the rhetoric being spouted about how bad this bill is for the residents of VT and will cause them all kinds of problems. In fact the comments from one organization placed this problem as the #1 reason for opposing this bill. From what I can tell this bill has no effect on the residents of VT one way or the other. Presently for a VT resident to carry in other states they have to obtain a non-resident permit from some other state. With this bill they will have to do the same, it is just that the NR permit will not be recognized by HR 822 and they will still only be able to carry in those states that already NR permists from the state that they hold the permit.

VT can easily correct this problem by issuing a permit for those that wish to obtain one without requiring any training or background check. Just go down to the local Sheriff's office and get them to issue a permit. I don't see where this bill is terrible for VT residents nor is it any good. Either way this is not something to opposed this bill about. However there are some other things about it I don't like but this is not one of them.

 

[GHF]

Action in the Senate

Harry Reid has already promised Senator Thune that he can propose an amendment to the Defense Authorization bill on National Concealed carry.

Back in 2009 the same kind of maneuver was tried by Thune, and he lost by two votes. It takes 60 votes to add such an amendment, and he came up two votes short.

Two of the people who voted against it, Robert Byrd of WV (dead) has been replaced by Manigin (for) and Arlen Spector of PA (defeated in 2010) has been replaced by Pat Toomey, who is for it. Brown replaced Kennedy, who voted against it.

Others who voted against it are gone via the 2010 election.

Some of the fools who vote against it and either escaped defeat in 2010 (or were not on the ballot) are seeing the light, and their principle argument, states rights, got trashed by McDonald v Chicago.

If it part of a much larger bill, BHO will just grit and sign it, as he did with the National Parks and AMTRAK.

 

[mrjam2jab]

I agree with this but am confused with all the rhetoric being spouted about how bad this bill is for the residents of VT and will cause them all kinds of problems. In fact the comments from one organization placed this problem as the #1 reason for opposing this bill. From what I can tell this bill has no effect on the residents of VT one way or the other. Presently for a VT resident to carry in other states they have to obtain a non-resident permit from some other state. With this bill they will have to do the same, it is just that the NR permit will not be recognized by HR 822 and they will still only be able to carry in those states that already NR permists from the state that they hold the permit.

.

Explain please.

 

[FN1910]

Maybe I was a little confusing with my reply. For example you are a resident of SC and have a FL non-resident permit. Under 822 your FL non-resident permit will suffice in the 48 states that issue permits other than SC. If you are a resident of SC you will be required to obtain a SC permit since SC does not recognize non-resident permits. 822 does not make any changes for residents of the state while inside that state. For NY residents they will still have to obtain a NY permit and if it is a restricted permit they will still be subject to those restrictions. However someone who is not a NY resident with a permit from any state other than NY, their permit will be an unrestricted permit.

For a VT resident, they will be required to obtain a non-resident from some other state and then it will be honored in all the other 48 states but not in VT. That is not a problem since they do not need one in VT. Therefore the residents of VT do not lose anything with 822 but do gain in that any non-resident permit the obtain will be honored in all the other 48 states. As it is now if a VT resident wants to carry in most states they have to obtain a non-resident permit so this does not change nor does it force VT to start issuing permits.

 

[GHF]

FN1910

Your analysis is correct. A NY permit in Florida (for example) would work the same as mine does as a resident. A NY permit will still not work in NYC, but Bloomberg and his clique would have to treat my Florida permit as if it was a Special Carry License (Robert DeNiro has one of the 2,500 or so).

 

[Rich_S]

..we need to do our part to get it to pass the Senate. Sadly, according to this email I received from GOAL, it seems that Senator Brown is not on board with it:



You can also go to Link Removed for additional contact options.

If this does pass the senate do you actually think Obama will sign it into law?

 

[FN1910]

If this does pass the senate do you actually think Obama will sign it into law?

In my opinion if it passes the Senate he will sign it. I think it is going to be very tough to get it through the senate. They may let it die in committee but we will have to see. Since there is a lot of publicity surrounding it they may be forced to bring it to a vote.