Contact your representative now for ccw

A marriage license is no more and no less a public act or record than a carry license. So why do all states recognize marriage licenses from other states (and other countries), but not carry licenses?
Click to expand...

All states do not recognize ALL marriage licenses from other states and other countries.
 
I find it more than a little amusing that the anti-gun lobby is making our argument for us ("our" referring only to those who favor state laws in support of carrying, as opposed to federal laws.):

“This policy removes the ability of your state to pass laws or regulations regarding armed visitors to your state and forces the citizens of your state to honor the policies of the government of another state over whom they have no electoral control or remedies for addressing ill-advised policies,” Rep. McCarthy wrote in her letter.
Click to expand...

I wonder if in the end this is a win-win. That is, the anti-gun lobby shows how anti-gun it is, and this provides increased impetus to change state laws on the local level. If I were a governor being faced with this type of pressure, as well as some of the pending court challenges mentioned elsewhere in this forum, particularly by Al Norris (btw, thanks Al), I would strongly consider making concessions in some of my stricter gun laws in order to decrease outside criticism. If some of the states see the wind blowing in the opposite direction, maybe they'll jump on the bandwagon before they're forced to do so by the feds. Then again, this might be wishful thinking.
 
'm divided on this law. (H.R. 822). Is it a Trojan Horse?

Will it mean the Feds will set rules for concealed carry? Will it allow the Attorney Generel to obtain a list of each state's concealed permit holders?

Will it require unreasonable, costly training, making CCW a rich man's right?

Will it tell us what to carry, or how many rounds, what type of rounds?

I would love to see each state reconizing every other state's permit, or better yet, no permit required anywhere, but I don't know if I trust the federal government on this issue.

I'd like to see some safe guards in the law that would protect the states. I hate to see the fed's requirments for the states to issue CC permits.

It's easier to control our laws on a local level then to control them on a federal level. I'm afraid H.R. 822 will put all the rules for CCW in the federal hands where we have less control.

Frankly I just don't know.
Click to expand...

Agreed - is the camel sticking its nose under the tent? And MY rep is the one who wrote the bill
 
According to the House floor calendar, H. Res 463, was approved by a vote of 271-153. The breakdown was all Republicans and 35 Democrats in favor, 153 Democrats opposed, 5 Republicans and 4 Democrats did not vote.

It establishes the conditions of debate for HR822. I have no idea when HR822 will come up for debate, but it won't be today.
 
I have already said that I don't like this bill, but what I would like Illinois' Governor Pat Quinn and all the other anti-Second Amendment politicians in Illinois to feel is tide of pro-gun sentiment and I want them to beleive that if they don't pass the Illinois carry law, it will be forced upon them anyway, so they should craft a bill at the state level.

I just want them to hear the voice of the citizens of Ilinois and the majority opinion of the people who demand their Second Amendment rights.
 
Please everyone note that states like Illinois should be thrilled with this legislation. Because the bill requires CHL holders from other states to abide by the laws of the state they are visiting, CHL holders would NOT be permitted to carry a concealed handgun at all in a state like Illinois, which effectively allows no one to carry a concealed handgun in the state.

Arguably, a state like California could require that CHL holders be individually approved by a California state approval board, thus nullifying the CHL permits of other states.
 
Arguably, a state like California could require that CHL holders be individually approved by a California state approval board, thus nullifying the CHL permits of other states.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the local sheriffs already approve individual CHLs in California. Either way, it seems like this bill would make the CHLs of other states completely valid in California. That is, after all, the point.
 
At this time this bill is a wast of time and hot air. It will not pass the senate and Obama will veto.

Expend your efforts on getting progun legislators and a progun president elected. Once that happens then use your chips to pass a uniform Carry law.
 
Let Obama and the democrats from places like Alabama, Arkansas, Texas, Florida and Nevada go on the record as being anti gun. It will be another nail in their political coffins. I know this may be mostly a symbolical vote but atleast it is an issue that will clearly show the American people where their politicians stand on the issue of the 2A and CC.
 
If this bill passes SCOTUS will be useless in gun rights cases in my opinion. We are better off without this bill again my opinion
 
It's clear that this bill will not force states like Illinois to allow carry.

And as Holt stated, it may motivate states like California to imitate Illinois as the only way to maintain control of their gun laws.
 
Rep Bob Woodall basically said what I've said previously:

The bill is either constitutional or it's unconstitutional.

If it is constitutional then it's unecesary since all the states would have to eventually adhere to some similar standard - the same way that Miranda rights cannot vary radically from state to state.
 
C-Span Coverage

Rob Woodall from Georgia's 7th District is my new hero. I think his arguments were spot on. While there seems to be consensus among many on this forum that this legislation won't make it past the Senate, I still dislike the whole idea.

This debate has also convinced me that, while the Court can be abused as a vehicle to accomplish what can't be accomplished legislatively, it's role here is essential. As Rob Woodall said, if the 2nd Amendment provides me the right to carry my weapon from state to state, then the 2nd Amendment is enough and no new federal legislation is needed. If it doesn't provide that right, then leave it to the states. I think it does provide that right, but let the Court declare limits like those in Illinois unconstitutional. This is their proper role in our federal system. Our 2nd Amendment rights come from the Constitution, not the federal legislature. The Supreme Court has the right, and it is their role, to interpret the Constitution and, where necessary, strike down unconstitutional laws, even when those laws are passed by a state. However, this right doesn't extend to the Congress. So let Congress stay out of this one and if need be, let the Supreme Court discuss the legality of Iliinois' blanket ban and other similarly restrictive laws in places like New Jersey and California.

Or, better yet, let the states come to this on their own.
 
Both Representatives Woodall and Lamar Smith have raised excellent points.

As GI Sandv pointed out, Woodall's contention that either the Second Amendment applies in this case or it does not. If it applies, the law is unnecessary. If it does not, then it is unconstitutional.

But Smith pointed out that the camel's nose is already under the tent, so to speak. The federal government has already allowed certain classes of law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons in all states...is there a valid reason to not expand that to all law abiding citizens?

I'm also struck by the hypocrisy on both sides regarding the states' rights issue.

Personally, I would much rather see this issue resolved in the same way that driver's licenses were.
 
There's a ton of wildly inaccurate information floating around the lower chamber this afternoon, from both sides. Not that that's something new, of course.

Let me also add that Representative Sheila Jackson Lee is nuts. Wow.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top