Contact your representative now for ccw

[Aguila Blanca]

]It's just crazy
When people want something so badly what they're willing to give up to get it.

What -- exactly -- would we be giving up to enact H.R. 822?

And if you can cite something specific, didn't "we" already give it up when the Congress passed and the President signed the LEOSA? H.R. 822 is nothing but the civilian equivalent of the LEOSA. Were you vehemently opposed to that? How has the LEOSA resulted in any loss of rights to the citizens of the several states?

 

[BGutzman]

What -- exactly -- would we be giving up to enact H.R. 822?

Its easy enough for anyone to slip a line onto another bill that would modify H.R 822. The health care bill proves out right that our legislative body will pass laws and have no clue what is in them.... what would make this different?

Lastly if that’s not enough proof look where our legislative body has brought our nation to? Not the same place it was 20 years ago..... Want these good idea fairies coming up with more good ideas?

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .And how do you vote people out in other states that won't recognize reciprocity?

THAT, right there, is one of the reasons I don't like this bill. I have no doubt that, should this bill pass, then the next step will be "national standards," which will no doubt be characterized as "common sense standards." I don't want representatives from other states (against whom I cannot vote) deciding what standards my state should use to decide who does and does not get a CHCL.

 

[youngunz4life]

you know it might be possible to CCW in Illinois too when this does pass. Off-duty LEOs can carry there via LEOSA. This might be different, but federal law trumps state law.

as far as the standard national test or guidelines...I feel this assessment is way off base Spats. Its just not about that, and I never see that happening. Certain things are always stateside: marriages, driving, local state laws, etc.

You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.

 

[icedog88]

Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose. I didn't think it was overbearing or out of line. Is that a form of gun control that scares people? It's common sense. Show me you ain't mental, or a felon, sit in class and learn about firearm laws and show you can use one. Outrageous! Now that I think about it , I'm gonna turn my permit in on Monday. Ok, maybe not

 

[American Made]

So in my opinion, since my state doesn't offer reciprocity and the others surrounding it are of the same mind, essentially pinning me and my right to carry to the confines of this State border, I turn to the federal government to help fix what I consider wrong.
__________________

I have the utmost sympathy for those living in places run by socialist thugs! I've been blessed in never have been in that situation - like I said - most of what we deal with are federal laws. In my case, I want my State to side with it's residents and NULLIFY federal laws. And many here forget that many/All ? States have State constitutions on firearm issues. I know Idaho Statutes spells out the CCW issue very well:

18-3302. Issuance of licenses to carry concealed weapons. (1) The sheriff of a county, on behalf of the state of Idaho, shall, within ninety (90) days after the filing of an application by any person who is not disqualified from possessing or receiving a firearm under state or federal law, issue a license to the person to carry a weapon concealed on his person within this state. For licenses issued before July 1, 2006, a license shall be valid for four (4) years from the date of issue. For licenses issued on or after July 1, 2006, a license shall be valid for five (5) years from the date of issue. The citizen's constitutional right to bear arms shall not be denied to him, unless one (1) of the following applies....................................

CAUTION: Federal law and state law on the possession of weapons and firearms differ. If you are prohibited by federal law from possessing a weapon or a firearm, you may be prosecuted in federal court. A state permit is not a defense to a federal prosecution.

(17) The attorney general is authorized to negotiate reciprocal agreements with other states related to the recognition of licenses to carry concealed weapons. The Idaho state police shall keep a copy and maintain a record of all such agreements, which shall be made available to the public.



Can opposing states or the federal government decide that each individual must buy health insurance or any other product for that matter? What limits them from doing that? Is it that perhaps they weren't delegated such powers in the Constitution?

What limits the power of the federal government?

 

[Rusty35]

icedog88

Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose. I didn't think it was overbearing or out of line. Is that a form of gun control that scares people? It's common sense. Show me you ain't mental, or a felon, sit in class and learn about firearm laws and show you can use one. Outrageous! Now that I think about it , I'm gonna turn my permit in on Monday. Ok, maybe not

No that is a bearable standard.

In fact it is so easy that the GAO/Comptroller will most likely find it to not be adequate, and that CT needs much more stringent regulations.

 

[icedog88]

Well, what other regulations do you actually see being imposed? Because surely it's right there in the middle or perhaps even near the top of what is required by most states. As far as this perception that gov is out to stick it to us every chance they get, well, I'll go put the tin foil in my hardhat and line my house with egg cartons this afternoon.

 

[Rusty35]

icedog88

Well, what other regulations do you actually see being imposed? Because surely it's right there in the middle or perhaps even near the top of what is required by most states. As far as this perception that gov is out to stick it to us every chance they get, well, I'll go put the tin foil in my hardhat and line my house with egg cartons this afternoon.

Your probably right.
We really have no evidence that any one is trying to take our 2nd amendment rights from us.

 

[icedog88]

Your probably right.
We really have no evidence that any one is trying to take our 2nd amendment rights from us.

I see we are going to extremes again. Good gracious. Maybe the EXTRA THICK foil!

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .as far as the standard national test or guidelines...I feel this assessment is way off base Spats. Its just not about that, and I never see that happening. Certain things are always stateside: marriages, driving, local state laws, etc.

Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off. Even in my lifetime, the federal government has expanded its power fairly dramatically. The 20th century represented a huge expansion of federal power under the Commerce Clause.

Frankly, I see no reason to expect anything other than a push for national standards. Right after the Tuscon/Gifford shooting, there was a push to ban "assault clips." Right after 9/11, the TSA was formed, and airport security was taken out of the hands of the states. Mind you, I'm not saying that this bill is a tragedy on the scale of 9/11. What I'm saying is this: the standard federal response to any problem, real or imagined, is to create a solution on the national level, standardize it, and take it out of the hands of the states.

And in spite of the anti-gun opposition to this bill, I would respectfully suggest that one of them will come to the grand conclusion that fairly extensive training should be required for anyone to carry a gun anywhere (except LEO, of course), thus making it cost prohibitive to get a CCL.

I've seen many comparisons with CCLs and driver's licenses or marriage licenses. They are wholly different things. Marriage licenses are public records. CCLs are not. States recognize other state's marriages, not their marriage licenses. The license is merely evidence of the state's approval.

As for DLs, well, if we treated firearms like we treat cars: (1) I could buy a gun with no license at all; (2) I would be allowed to fire my guns on private property all I want with no license; (3) Anybody could buy all the cars they wanted, at any age, with no restriction except the budget.

You know some states don't like the fed govt because the feds can push them around. They want all of the control(to include the politicians). The fact is, there are goods and bads to both states and fed govts. the federal government of the United States of America is not all that bad and has done some good things for the country. I do agree this world seems a little more tangled and complicated these days...hopefully someday we can loosen up some of the excess baggage and get back to basics.

I've never said that everything the feds do is bad. In fact, I'd call it one of the best governments in the world, overall. But this bill is a very bad idea.

And yes, I want as much control (to include the politicians) as I can get over the laws that affect my life.

 

[Rusty35]

icedog88

I see we are going to extremes again. Good gracious. Maybe the EXTRA THICK foil!

Im not real sure what tin foil has to do with the topic?

Rather than tossing around the personal insults, why not explain why you think we need the interstate commerce clause in this bill.

Or why the GAO/Comptroller General should do the Audit/Study after enactment rather than before?

Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.

 

[icedog88]

Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.

Figured if I lined my stomach, I'd be doubly protected!
Nothing personal, just want to make sure I get in step with the populace that thinks the government is out to get me.

Commerce clause doesn't concern me, nor a study. I hardly think that the NRA which backed this bill, would have if they thought it was bad for CCW holders. I am pretty sure that when/if the Senate gets this bill, any adverse proposed attachments that are detrimental to the idea of this bill, would be squashed by most who back the bill as it stands.

 

[Rusty35]

icedog88
Quit eating the tinfoil, its bad for you.
Figured if I lined my stomach, I'd be doubly protected!
Nothing personal, just want to make sure I get in step with the populace that thinks the government is out to get me.

Commerce clause doesn't concern me, nor a study. I hardly think that the NRA which backed this bill, would have if they thought it was bad for CCW holders. I am pretty sure that when/if the Senate gets this bill, any adverse proposed attachments that are detrimental to the idea of this bill, would be squashed by most who back the bill as it stands.

What populace thinks the government is out to get them?

Not me I assure you.
They already got us.

This bill is supposed to be an effort to get some of our rights back, because our government is out to get us and have been successful so far.

 

[youngunz4life]

Spats, I guess we'll agree to disagree

Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off.

The idea that when this bill passes all of a sudden it will be much more difficult in VA, TX, AK, and so-on to get a CCW is ludicrous @ best. It is just the farthest thing from the truth, so it needs to be clarified.

 

[Rusty35]

youngunz4life

Spats, I guess we'll agree to disagree
Quote:
Clearly, I don't think my assessment is off, much less way off.
The idea that when this bill passes all of a sudden it will be much more difficult in VA, TX, AK, and so-on to get a CCW is ludicrous @ best. It is just the farthest thing from the truth, so it needs to be clarified.

The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.

 

[therealdeal]

The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.

something like that is an automatic so they can close any loopholes as one example plus make it kosher

 

[Rusty35]

therealdeal

The Bill gives the GAO 12 months to determine the safest laws and regulations, and basis for denials for protecting the general public.
something like that is an automatic so they can close any loopholes as one example plus make it kosher

What do you believe the GAO will determine?

Which state has the safest laws and regulations for protecting the public from legal CC ?

 

[war_elephant]

HR822 is the only way that out of staters will EVER be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in NJ. Talking to someone who is more close to the situation in the NJ statehouse, I think they will still never agree to CCW for private citizens of this police state. The comment from one legistlator is that the only way that CCW will ever be permitted in this state (shall issue or realistic may issue) is for the federal courts to FORCE NJ to do so. Without national reciprocity, out of NJ CCW will never be permitted. Better for you to be a victim they figure.
Elections-? All of the same idiots that caused the problems in NJ, just got re-elected for another term. Light turnout, most people in NJ dont care, beaten down, accept their position as servants of their Govt rulers, I cant wait to sell and get out of this police state. Very soon, Very soon.

 

[Don P]

President signed the LEOSA? H.R. 822 is nothing but the civilian equivalent of the LEOSA. Were you vehemently opposed to that? How has the LEOSA resulted in any loss of rights to the citizens of the several states?

If I am understanding things right, places like NYC, DC, IL, NJ are going to be off limits. Just imagine the uproar when out of state folks are CCW in places like NYC, IL, NJ, DC and the residents of these places are not getting approved or just cant afford it because of price. I really do not see this happening.
Let me play the devils advocate here. What happens if NYC, NJ, IL, DC or any state that does not want any part of HB 822 just pass a law that there will be NO CCW permits issued. Then what recourse is there? Will SCOTUS here any grievances brought before them on 2 nd. amendment.

Here in CT you go through a background check,a class, and live fire. That is a "national standard" I can live with. Heck, I did it to get my carry permit. That was the purpose

We do the same in FLA and for the longest time SC did not honor FLA's CCW permit stating our traing did not meet there standards. Go figure