Trojan Horse of H.R. 822

[gibbs1911]

Sorry I'm not sure how to do the link thing so here is the e-mail it-self.

Some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control.
Of course, I'm talking about H.R. 822, the so-called "National Reciprocity Act," which could open the flood gates of gun control.
I'm calling it the National CCW Registration Act.
While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.
Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it's only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.
Now you may hear arguments that this bill doesn't do that, and maybe that's true ... for now.
Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything ... and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn't count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the "regulations" to carry out the legislative "intent."
I know many of you are frustrated that you can carry in some states but not others -- I'm frustrated, too.
I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go, and have worked to expand the ability of citizens to carry in dozens of states.
I believe I should be able to carry concealed -- without a permit -- in all 50 states. That's what "bear arms" means. Believe me, that's a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.
But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.
I understand that many who support this bill sincerely just want their right to carry respected -- but cannot due to the fact that their state or another won't do the right thing.
But the devil is truly in the details... and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.
This bill isn't just about the right to carry for self defense -- it's a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.
Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.
We're talking about:
More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York's permit system);
Higher fees;
More training requirements;
A demonstration of "Need" for a permit;
More frequent renewal periods;
Federally-mandated waiting periods;
A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable;
The list of potential problems is endless.
Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.
It doesn't stop with just concealed carry. They'll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms -- much less use them for self defense.
I don't believe the intentions of the bill sponsors are intrinsically bad -- they're just naive and misguided.
Many statists in Washington will co-opt H.R. 822 as part of their grab for more federal power and less individual liberty.
Even now, the statists in Congress are trying to adopt a National ID card, complete with biometric data that they've forced the states to conform to their mandated drivers license "standards." The National Association for Gun Rights has been part of a group of liberty-minded organizations that have passed state legislation forbidding cooperation with the federal National ID.
While many in the institutional gun control lobby will tell you this is a step forward for CCW permit holders, make no mistake, the National CCW Registration Act is a misguided attempt to protect our rights.
It's like asking the fox to guard the hen house.
They will use this bill as the foundation to create a federal database of CCW permit holders. And then they can link it everywhere the Feds have database connections -- state police, doctors and insurance companies under Obamacare, and Medicaid/Medicare.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to entrust my liberty and privacy to a "trust us, they won't do that "approach to dealing with Obama, the gun-grabbers or frankly most politicians of either party in Washington.
I need you to make some noise, right now!
Not tomorrow. Not later today. RIGHT NOW.
Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government's hands off the state-run CCW permit system.
If you'd prefer to email them, you can find the link to your Congressman here.
It's imperative that we stop H.R. 822 -- the National CCW Registration Act -- before it gathers steam and support.
Liberal Republicans and so-called "conservative" Democrats are looking for an easy "pro-gun" vote to give them cover before the next election.
A Trojan Horse gun control bill like H.R. 822 is exactly the kind of legislation that will get support on both sides of the aisle in Washington D.C. And remember, the Democrat-controlled Senate has to pass it before it gets to Obama ... so this bill will only get worse.
That's why you and I have to make noise, now!
Please call your Congressman at 202-224-3121 (send an email, too; you can get that link here) and relay the message that gun owners oppose H.R. 822, the Trojan Horse gun control bill. Make clear that you want to keep the Federal Government's hands off the state-run CCW permit system.
Thank you for joining me in this important fight against the National CCW Registration Act.

For Freedom,


Dudley Brown
Executive Director

[SHMIV]

Logical argument.

[Kreutz]

More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York's permit system);

This made me laugh! Maybe about 18 months ago an FBI agent was surrounded at gunpoint by several Port Authority police officers, dragged out of his car, and handled in a not so gentle fashion. His crime? He had his duty pistol on the passenger seat while trying to cross what I think was the Triboro bridge. His explanations and ID fell on deaf ears.

He sued the Port Authority and won too.

Thats what you'd be up against if you traveled to NY if this bill passed.

[Inquisitor]

With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I don't know if this posting is for real or is a ploy to get us to lobby against H.R. 822. For my part, I think I'll stick with the NRA on this one and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

[Kreutz]

With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I don't know if this posting is for real or is a ploy to get us to lobby against H.R. 822. For my part, I think I'll stick with the NRA on this one and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

Logical argument. As well.

[XD9SCLCP380]

With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I don't know if this posting is for real or is a ploy to get us to lobby against H.R. 822. For my part, I think I'll stick with the NRA on this one and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

+1

[SHMIV]

Perhaps, but I'd rather see the federal government actually enforce the 2nd amendment, as opposed to writing more gun laws. There are too many laws pertaining to guns, as is.

[seeknulfind]

The Democrats have operated this way for years. Instead of going for the jugular, they chip away at the feet, the legs, the hind quarters and on and on until they finally kill the beast.

Would surprise me if they came up with the riddle: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Oppose this bill and anything that remotely smacks of it. Concealed carry permits need to be abolished.

Andy

[thekinetic]

I'm going to stick to my guns and go with NRA on this too!

By the way holy wall of text batman....it just needed to be said!

[spadesofcolumbia]

i see the appeal on both sides of the argument but i would like to carry while i travel and some states dont like that

[SHMIV]

i see the appeal on both sides of the argument but i would like to carry while i travel and some states dont like that

The 2nd Amendment already allows for that. The trick is to get the 2nd Amendment properly enforced, not add more legislation to the pile.

[Inquisitor]

For all of you that only want all CCW abolished and the full intent of the 2A implemented - how's that been working out for you?

[SHMIV]

For all of you that only want all CCW abolished and the full intent of the 2A implemented - how's that been working out for you?

Only slightly better than most attempts at fighting like hell to keep an existing piece of legislation from expanding.

[VBshooter]

For anyone wondering if the OP post was real you can relax..It is from Dudley over at the NAGR (National Assn.for Gun Rights)
[urlhttp://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r-822-a-trojan-horse/][/url] I too don;t like the way a bill like this could be used for no good..and if we have learned anything in the last 3 years we are aware that the SOB;s in power have the will to test every and anything to its breaking point and act justified in doing so.

[seeknulfind]

For all of you that only want all CCW abolished and the full intent of the 2A implemented - how's that been working out for you?

Possible answer number 1: It's not working out at all. Gee does that mean we should just roll over and quit?

Possible answer number 2: We are having some success. We are at least spreading the word around that this is unacceptable.

Possible answer number 3: We have this one beat so we can sit back and relax because the anti-gunners are just going to quit.

So what do YOU recommend?

Andy

[Yarddawg]

For all of you that only want all CCW abolished and the full intent of the 2A implemented - how's that been working out for you?

Lately, it has been working:

4 states so far that have Constitutional Carry
Vermont
Alaska
Arizona
Wyoming

11 states considering Constitutional Carry
Colorado
Idaho
Iowa
Kentucky
Maine
Montana
Nevada
New Hampshire
South Carolina
Tennessee
West Virginia

4 States with legislation that did not pass (yet)
Montana
Oregon
Utah
Virginia

Yes, strides are being undertaken to take back the Constitution!

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

[Inquisitor]

For all of you that only want all CCW abolished and the full intent of the 2A implemented - how's that been working out for you?

Possible answer number 1: It's not working out at all. Gee does that mean we should just roll over and quit?

Possible answer number 2: We are having some success. We are at least spreading the word around that this is unacceptable.

Possible answer number 3: We have this one beat so we can sit back and relax because the anti-gunners are just going to quit.

So what do YOU recommend?

Andy

I believe we should find and support every proposed legislation that advances our rights. In the process, we need to actively oppose any legislation that chips away at those rights. Here is a quote from another discussion:
H.R. 822: Responding to the Naysayers
Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, H.R. 822 is now being attacked by a few self-proclaimed “gun rights” supporters with no active lobbying presence in any legislature, whose real agendas have little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners. Here are the facts about a few of their claims:

Myth: H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permits, resulting in “need” requirements, higher fees, waiting periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.
Fact: H.R. 822 doesn’t require — or even authorize — any such action by any federal agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall under a limitation within that law that authorizes “only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out” the GCA’s provisions. No federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which simply overrides certain state laws.

Myth: If H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to anti-gun amendments.
Truth: By this logic, neither the NRA nor any other pro-gun group should ever promote any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn’t an option for those of us who want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by careful vote counting and use of legislative procedure, anti-gun amendments can be avoided or defeated.

[jnojr]

What does the bill actually say?

Any bill "could be" changed to do a lot of things. But there's a point in the process where representatives are voting on what it is. If it's good, tell them to pass it. If it's bad, tell them not to pass it. There is no way it can be a straightforward reciprocity, be voted on, and suddenly contain a bunch of language giving the Feds de jure oversight over CCWs.

[Inquisitor]

What does the bill actually say?

Here is the text of the actual bill:


HR 822 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 822

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 18, 2011

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--
`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.'.
(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
END

[seeknulfind]

I believe we should find and support every proposed legislation that advances our rights.

I agree completely with this statement.

BTW, I have not scrutinized the pros/cons of this. I don't feel I need to. On principle alone I do not believe this bill advances our rights, it detracts from them by assuming:

a) the federal government has the authority to "bless" the concept of limiting a law-biding citizen's right to carry.

b) the federal government has the authority to dictate to individual states what laws from other states they must honor.

Consider the term itself... concealed carry permit - the very term implies a law-biding citizen should have permission to bear arms. Well, we HAVE a constitutional RIGHT to bear arms already. The 2nd amendment does not differentiate between one or the other (oc vs cc) because it was not necessary.

This issue needs to be dealt with on a state by state basis. I do not see any advantage to allowing the feds to chime in here.

Andy