Senate bill
- Thread starter Shakgul
- Start date
AirForceShooter
New member
Pelosi is doing her best to stop this bill in the senate.
edit: should be Dianne Feinstein
AFS
edit: should be Dianne Feinstein
AFS
Last edited:
AirForceShooter
New member
my error.
I meant Feinstein.
She has asked Reid to table the bills
AFS
I meant Feinstein.
She has asked Reid to table the bills
AFS
alanheaberlin
Inactive
My mother always taught me, if I can't say something good about somebody, don't say anything at all.
I only have good things to say about Dianne Feinstein. She is as tenacious as a hair in a biscuit! And work ethic? If Dianne dropped dead, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer would prop her up in her committee chair seat and put dark glasses on her like Weekend at Bernie's.
Guess that's all the good I have to say about her...
I only have good things to say about Dianne Feinstein. She is as tenacious as a hair in a biscuit! And work ethic? If Dianne dropped dead, Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer would prop her up in her committee chair seat and put dark glasses on her like Weekend at Bernie's.
Guess that's all the good I have to say about her...
Even if the bill in question does make it through the Senate (which doesn't seem particularly likely given the current makeup of that chamber), it is extremely unlikely that President Obama would sign it as he's made previous statements against CC and comes from the only state in the country which still has no legal provision for a private individual to carry a loaded firearm.
If this bill goes any further, I see it happening after the next election and then only if the political makeup of the Senate and White House is very different from what it is today. Even then, we could expect rather tenacious opposition because the chances of the "usual suspects" such as Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, Rush, and McCarthy all losing re-election are very, very remote.
I think that the much more likely path for broadening carry rights is the judiciary and agreements between the states, and I'm not all that convinced that's not the way it should be.
If this bill goes any further, I see it happening after the next election and then only if the political makeup of the Senate and White House is very different from what it is today. Even then, we could expect rather tenacious opposition because the chances of the "usual suspects" such as Feinstein, Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, Rush, and McCarthy all losing re-election are very, very remote.
I think that the much more likely path for broadening carry rights is the judiciary and agreements between the states, and I'm not all that convinced that's not the way it should be.
I think you're absolutely right. HR 822 will be watered down well before passage, and I don't doubt that a number of onerous riders will be attached. Furthermore, all it does is reinforce the idea that carry is a permitted privilege rather than a right.
What we need (and might get with Woollard) is a Supreme Court verdict affirming a right to carry, and things like reciprocity will emanate from that.
I, personally, don't think that HR822 has a chance of making it through the Senate. If it does, Obama will veto it. Since it takes a 2/3 majority in the House and also a 2/3 majority in the Senate to override a presidential veto, it is dead.
Personally, I think that the judiciary is the better way to go right now. That and agreements between states. It is an interstate compact that allows me to drive in every state on a Texas DL, by the way. There is no national law that requires states to recognize other states' DL's.
Also, HR822 has one subtle danger. While it is totally silent on requirements for issuance of a CHL, if it becomes law, the likes of Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et. al. will begin to demand passage of another law that sets federal standards for issuance of CHL's. In fact, Boxer has already introduced such a law in the Senate. Right now, it's not going anywhere, but passage of HR 822 could change that. Boxer's bill requires that all carry permits be discretionary rather than shall-issue and that the applicant "show good cause" to need to carry a firearm. That is the danger.
Personally, I think that the judiciary is the better way to go right now. That and agreements between states. It is an interstate compact that allows me to drive in every state on a Texas DL, by the way. There is no national law that requires states to recognize other states' DL's.
Also, HR822 has one subtle danger. While it is totally silent on requirements for issuance of a CHL, if it becomes law, the likes of Boxer, Schumer, Pelosi, Feinstein, et. al. will begin to demand passage of another law that sets federal standards for issuance of CHL's. In fact, Boxer has already introduced such a law in the Senate. Right now, it's not going anywhere, but passage of HR 822 could change that. Boxer's bill requires that all carry permits be discretionary rather than shall-issue and that the applicant "show good cause" to need to carry a firearm. That is the danger.
TheKlawMan
Moderator
TexaFats, At first blush, to me it seems reasonable that if the one state in effect can impose its decisions on the fitness of an individual for a CCW, that there should be the uniformity created by fedral standards. Think about it,
If one lives in a state with a very thin population and few law enforcement officers per its vast territory, the pressure is on a resident to provide for his own protection. The likelihood of accidental shootings may also be less than it is in a densly populated state.
Taking all things into consideration, state one may opt for very low standards to CCW. Densely populated state 2 with a tax basis able to support a large constabulary may decide that higher standards best assure the safety and welfare of its residents.
Why then should State 2's residents nevertheless have State 1's standards, with risks that were acceptablt to the people of that state but were rejected by those of State 2, imposed upon it.
Some gun rights supporters talk a lot about liberty, but why should the people of one state in effect delegate their legislative rights to the people of a sister state?
The same people might rightly argue that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
In actuality, who is affronted by the refusal of certain states to grant comity to the licesees of shall issue states? I don't think many of the agrieved persons are residents of shall issue states, although many would wish to carry when travelling. Isn't it the residents of states like California that cover the right of citzens of other states to carry concealed, but the truth is that many Cali citizens don't want a loose CCW policy.
I am not saying they are right or wrong and the more I look into the CCW issue the more I think it a good thing, but I think it is wrong for Cali to be forced to govern its state according to the laws of another place.
If one lives in a state with a very thin population and few law enforcement officers per its vast territory, the pressure is on a resident to provide for his own protection. The likelihood of accidental shootings may also be less than it is in a densly populated state.
Taking all things into consideration, state one may opt for very low standards to CCW. Densely populated state 2 with a tax basis able to support a large constabulary may decide that higher standards best assure the safety and welfare of its residents.
Why then should State 2's residents nevertheless have State 1's standards, with risks that were acceptablt to the people of that state but were rejected by those of State 2, imposed upon it.
Some gun rights supporters talk a lot about liberty, but why should the people of one state in effect delegate their legislative rights to the people of a sister state?
The same people might rightly argue that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
In actuality, who is affronted by the refusal of certain states to grant comity to the licesees of shall issue states? I don't think many of the agrieved persons are residents of shall issue states, although many would wish to carry when travelling. Isn't it the residents of states like California that cover the right of citzens of other states to carry concealed, but the truth is that many Cali citizens don't want a loose CCW policy.
I am not saying they are right or wrong and the more I look into the CCW issue the more I think it a good thing, but I think it is wrong for Cali to be forced to govern its state according to the laws of another place.
Last edited:
Armorer-at-Law
New member
KlawMan,
All of your reasoning supports that the proposed federal law is a bad idea rather than supporting that there should be some national standards. The federal government has no more Conctitutional authority to set such a standard than to dictate how much water each of our toilets use per flush.
All of your reasoning supports that the proposed federal law is a bad idea rather than supporting that there should be some national standards. The federal government has no more Conctitutional authority to set such a standard than to dictate how much water each of our toilets use per flush.
cannonfire
New member
Although it may seem like a good idea up front, I find myself against this bill.
1. It could lead to more government intervention and could lead to more restrictive laws, like was said.
2. The federal government should not dictate anything with firearms unless it is for interstate commerce.
3. That is the beauty of the state government, that they can dictate their own laws as they see fit, not the federal government sees fit, or any other state for that matter.
To voluntarily give the federal government more power goes against everything I stand for personally. I see no problem with states working out who's permits they will honor without the use of the fed. I like it the way it is now. Keep the battles small and separated within the states before we try to tackle the fed's laws.
And I think that can be said about lots of things, not just firearms.
My 2 cents
1. It could lead to more government intervention and could lead to more restrictive laws, like was said.
2. The federal government should not dictate anything with firearms unless it is for interstate commerce.
3. That is the beauty of the state government, that they can dictate their own laws as they see fit, not the federal government sees fit, or any other state for that matter.
To voluntarily give the federal government more power goes against everything I stand for personally. I see no problem with states working out who's permits they will honor without the use of the fed. I like it the way it is now. Keep the battles small and separated within the states before we try to tackle the fed's laws.
And I think that can be said about lots of things, not just firearms.
My 2 cents
carguychris
New member
Regardless of its likelihood to earn a veto-proof majority, his party will probably make an all-out concerted effort to ensure that the bill doesn't reach his desk before the November election. Either stance he could take on this bill will upset a lot of voters in crucial swing states. Keeping the bill bottled up will allow his campaign to stay "on message" more easily.
(Pardon the potential sidetrack into politics, I feel it needed to be said.)
+100.
Spats McGee
Administrator
To a federal law mandating recognition of other states' CCLs, I say, "no, thank you." I'd much rather see something akin to the Drivers' License Compact passed at the state level.
Klawman,
I agree with you, but I am considering the political realities of the anti-gun movement. Those people will grasp at any excuse, good, bad, or indfferent, to restrict our rights. If HR822, did become law, then it is quite predictable that, say in 2013, when congress convenes, some of the anti-gun crowd like Schumer, for one, might say something like the following:
"The law now requires all states to recognize other states carry permits; however, some states do not have sufficiently stringent (in Schumer's opinion) requirements for the issuance of those licenses. Therefore, people from other states who would never be allowed to have a permit in NY will be able to carry on our streets. For that reason, we must have a national standard for the issuance of those licenses."
You know that is exactly what Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and other anti-gun folks in the House and Senate will argue. And, it sounds reasonable at first glance. Nevermind that in their states, only the wealthy and politically well-connected can get permits. Note: I think that argument is garbage, but it might get some traction. To make sure that out of state licenses are legitimate, they might also require that they all be entered into some new federal database. HR822 has some good things, but I don't think that some of its proponents have sufficiently thought through future unintended consequences. That is my point.
I agree with you, but I am considering the political realities of the anti-gun movement. Those people will grasp at any excuse, good, bad, or indfferent, to restrict our rights. If HR822, did become law, then it is quite predictable that, say in 2013, when congress convenes, some of the anti-gun crowd like Schumer, for one, might say something like the following:
"The law now requires all states to recognize other states carry permits; however, some states do not have sufficiently stringent (in Schumer's opinion) requirements for the issuance of those licenses. Therefore, people from other states who would never be allowed to have a permit in NY will be able to carry on our streets. For that reason, we must have a national standard for the issuance of those licenses."
You know that is exactly what Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and other anti-gun folks in the House and Senate will argue. And, it sounds reasonable at first glance. Nevermind that in their states, only the wealthy and politically well-connected can get permits. Note: I think that argument is garbage, but it might get some traction. To make sure that out of state licenses are legitimate, they might also require that they all be entered into some new federal database. HR822 has some good things, but I don't think that some of its proponents have sufficiently thought through future unintended consequences. That is my point.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And if I have a carry license/permit from my home state and I happen to find myself in one of the other states, am I not by definition engaging in interstate commerce?cannonfire said:
Besides, there's that pesky Constitution thing:
Is not issuing a license or permit -- to do anything -- an act?