H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:00:41 AM)
Looking for opinions on this piece of legislature sponsored by Clifford Stearns R-Fla. The law seeks to make each state recognize and accept each others right to carry permits...and is opposed by 550 of America's Mayors Doesn't this intrude on the premise of states rights.I mean if each municipality is not allowed to decide for themselves how they shall fashion their own gun laws haven't we put the lie for all time to local government.

Termyn8or -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:09:18 AM)
Maybe there is something that shall not be infringed. T^T

lovmuffin -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:10:27 AM)
There are so many states that recognize each others permits already. I think it's like 34 or 36. At this point some local and state gun laws have been recently found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. As to your question, I would have to know more about the legislation and then think about it a bit.

MileHighM -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:18:36 AM)
The Mayors really have no say in the matter. The constitution gives the legal authority to the states, not county or municiple governments. Mayors hate concealed carry, not cause there is a link to criminal activity, but because it causes a lot of disruption in densely populated areas (people calling 911 because they saw a gun, dealing with the large volume of bars in an urban area, settling disputes with business owners that forbid weapons on the property, etc.) As much as I agree with the right to carry and conceal carry, I don't support this law. The 2nd ammendment guarantees the right to bear arms, not to hide them under your jacket. The tenth gives the states to fill in the gaps of the law. This is violation of the 10th. This is really a defacto law to jamb florida's conceal carry laws on places like New York. This would be a violation of the rights of the people of New York, who may not want such liberal gun laws. It would also create a havoc of people running to other states to get permits and then carry and use the guns mostly in other areas. This just sets a bad precident. It basically allows one state to pass a law and make it a federal law. I wonder what this guy would think when gays that get married in Massachusetts show up and say that Florida must abide by all the laws Mass has written regarding gay marriage? There would be precident with this law.

tolovetolaugh -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:19:41 AM)
To the OP- Do you have a link we could look at? Edited to clarify

MileHighM -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:20:39 AM)
link to?

Lucylastic -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 10:22:06 AM)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h822/show for the bill itself

slvemike4u -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 11:09:52 AM)
Thanks Lucy,meant to try and add the link....but I forgot,my apologies. Mile,that's pretty much the way I see it,save for the fact that I believe New York already suffers from Virginia and Florida's liberal gun laws.Why should the citizens of New York City,which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country need to suffer tourists coming to town packing their pieces? This legislation is of course backed by the NRA....seems like an attempt to go round local ordinances rather than try to challenge them directly.Further evidence,in my mind at least that the NRA is willing to subvert the body of the Constitution in furtherance of the second ammendment.Hypocritical of an organization which basically wraps itself in that same Constitution .

FirstQuaker -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 11:18:41 AM)
Technically, since each US state is constitutionally the ones to regulate their own militias, (under the thumb of the US government) I suppose this might clash. However pursuant to Section 8 quote: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; I suppose congress could require a common licensing scheme or compact similar to drivers licenses and such. I don't think the thing could overwrite the local laws, prohibiting carrying concealed weapons, in those areas where the locals themselves are prohibited from carrying concealed weapons. Then there will be the issue for those states like Vermont or Arizona which do not have concealed carry licenses. And I can see them regulating just what is required to have such a license too. It certainly would go to court, regardless of what anyone thinks should be the law on the matter. Be careful what you ask for.

joether -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 11:18:49 AM)
Ok, so if the 10th Amendment is so important to conservatives, why are they trying to push a bill that violates it for other states? I can understand the nature of the bill, and while I disagree that its for 'the best of Americans', I see this as an easy law to be struck down over 10th Amendment limitations. So why go through a process that will ultimately be DOA when it hits the SCOTUS? Wouldn't that be considered a 'waste of taxpayer money'?

slvemike4u -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 11:37:46 AM)
Funny you should bring up waste of taxpayer monies Joe...this asshole is the same idiot who(along with others) blocked passage of the Zadroga Act,which offered compensation and health coverage to Ground Zero workers. What did he demand as prid pro quo for his vote to pass....that the FBI conduct background checks on all the recipients looking for ties to international terrorists. 6,000 FBI background checks later( at what cost in dollars and FBI man hours ?) no terrorists nor ties t terrorists were found. Your tax dollars at work

Epytropos -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 11:56:18 AM)
No more so than the enforcement of any other provision of the Constitution does. The Constitution is the be all and end all, and it only guarantees to the states those rights which are not granted to the federal government, among which is the maintenance of the Bill of Rights.

MileHighM -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 12:21:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Mile,that's pretty much the way I see it,save for the fact that I believe New York already suffers from Virginia and Florida's liberal gun laws.Why should the citizens of New York City,which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country need to suffer tourists coming to town packing their pieces? This legislation is of course backed by the NRA....seems like an attempt to go round local ordinances rather than try to challenge them directly.Further evidence,in my mind at least that the NRA is willing to subvert the body of the Constitution in furtherance of the second ammendment.Hypocritical of an organization which basically wraps itself in that same Constitution . The NRA doesn't worry about the rest of the constitution because their members pay them to worry about one thing and one thing only...The Second Ammendment (If they didn't back this they would likely lose some member donations). I don't say that is hypocritical, merely because that is their chartered concern. Often this is true for nearly every special interest. Just like the ACLU doesn't give a rats ass about 2nd A rights and would trample on them in a heart-beat. Ultimately, I think Cliff is just doing some legal grand standing to shore up his base, pull down some NRA campaign money, and get his name in the paper. He is doing it now because it is safe, it will never make it past the senate let alone Obama (Doubtful he would even garner enough R support in the house for this, considering this is not a hot issue). He can get all the perks without having to deliver on a promise. Typical political sleaziness.

slvemike4u -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 12:29:14 PM)
Can't agree with that,the ACLU cares about the Constitution in it's entirety and will defend every one of it's protections to the fullest. I would suggest that the reason the ACLU doesn't jump into Second Ammendment cases all thatoften is the existence of the NRA which is,as per it's charter,all over any attempt to abridge those rights. The hypocrisy,as I see it,is that the NRA while defending the second will ,if need be ,ignore other Constitutional concerns......a tactic not employed by the ACLU.

MileHighM -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 12:40:59 PM)
The ACLU is supposed to be concerned with the overall Constitution (American Civil Liberties Union). The NRA (National Rifle Association) is just that, a gun owner's rights organization. If the 2nd were stripped from the constitution, the NRA would have to change its tune away from the constitution, but it would still exist and still fight for the people's interest in bearing arms. That's what they are paid to do. I just don't get the indignation....they come right out and say it with their name. NAMBLA comes out and says it with there name. I am not indignant that they exist. Rather happy actually. If you are a perve and dumb enough to join the nut house, you just made it easier for the rest of us to track you and question you every time a young boy is molested.

lovmuffin -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 12:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I would suggest that the reason the ACLU doesn't jump into Second Amendment cases all that often is the existence of the NRA which is,as per it's charter,all over any attempt to abridge those rights. The hypocrisy,as I see it,is that the NRA while defending the second will ,if need be ,ignore other Constitutional concerns......a tactic not employed by the ACLU. The ACLU has always been conspicuously silent when it comes to the 2nd amendment. To the best of my knowledge they have never jumped into a 2nd amendment case except for the one cited below. I'm thinking they don't because they buy into the "not and individual right / militia clause argument".

MileHighM -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 12:46:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I would suggest that the reason the ACLU doesn't jump into Second Amendment cases all that often is the existence of the NRA which is,as per it's charter,all over any attempt to abridge those rights. The hypocrisy,as I see it,is that the NRA while defending the second will ,if need be ,ignore other Constitutional concerns......a tactic not employed by the ACLU. The ACLU has always been conspicuously silent when it comes to the 2nd amendment. To the best of my knowledge they have never jumped into a 2nd amendment case. I'm thinking they don't because they buy into the "not and individual right / militia clause argument". Actually they have, they decided to defend an imigrant. They said immigrants have a 14th amendment right to get a concealed carry permit if they want one. Odd case, considering they never defend citizens who are denied CCPs.

Moonhead -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 1:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Maybe there is something that shall not be infringed. T^T They were making a point of infringing that one around the turn of the '70s when they locked up a bunch of the panthers for firearms? (They didn't lock up Ice T, but if memory serves, the chair of the NRA Michael Moore tore a new arsehole for did get one of his records pulled back in the mid '90s...)

lovmuffin -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 1:08:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MileHighM quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I would suggest that the reason the ACLU doesn't jump into Second Amendment cases all that often is the existence of the NRA which is,as per it's charter,all over any attempt to abridge those rights. The hypocrisy,as I see it,is that the NRA while defending the second will ,if need be ,ignore other Constitutional concerns......a tactic not employed by the ACLU. The ACLU has always been conspicuously silent when it comes to the 2nd amendment. To the best of my knowledge they have never jumped into a 2nd amendment case. I'm thinking they don't because they buy into the "not and individual right / militia clause argument". Actually they have, they decided to defend an imigrant. They said immigrants have a 14th amendment right to get a concealed carry permit if they want one. Odd case, considering they never defend citizens who are denied CCPs. That's good to know and I even modified my post but now that I think about it, it wouldn't really be a case that gets into the question of gun rights or the 2nd amendment, but a question of the 14th amendment and accessing the permit system. But I suppose it's probably as close as they will ever get.

slvemike4u -> RE: H.R.822 National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 (9/12/2011 1:42:14 PM)
Again I would say that since the NRA often jumps into and supplies funding for Second Ammendment cases it just might be the view of the ACLU that their jumping in would be wholly redundant.The ACLU supports those defendants whose Constitutional rights are under attack(and where the successful prosecution would set a bad precedent) who lack the means to fight back absent the efforts of the ACLU.....NRA fills that role quite vehemently where the Second is concerned....so why would the ACLU duplicate those efforts. The ACLU resources are finite,why would they expend them defending an Ammendent that has it's own,quite effective ,lobby group?

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875