Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Support the Concealed Carry Bill H.R. 822!

Discussion in 'Gun-Control Issues' started by peteinnewyork, Oct 27, 2011.

  1. peteinnewyork


    Apr 14, 2009
    There is a petition on that is going around to show support for H.R. 822. This bill is extremely important and would mandate your carry license be recognized by other states that you travel to.

    Please sign and show your support! Pass it around!

    note: There is another petition against it with more signatures.. we need to show them up!
  2. michpatriot


    Feb 1, 2010
    No thanks...I'll keep my states rights! The bill is a trojan horse for anti gunners...........:steamed:

  3. dreis454


    Jul 11, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2011
  4. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    No thank you!


    We already have a national right to carry… It’s called the Second Amendment and what have they done to that. If anyone honestly doesn’t believe a national “accessible” data base and giving the Fedes MORE control won’t be uses against the citizens they need to climb out from under their rock. The Federal Government and BATF&E has already INTERPRETED the Second Amendment, what makes anyone think they won’t us this as just another way to show that it’s OK to do more INTERPRETATION? Having to be licensed to carry a firearm is already an infringement.
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2011
  5. TexasFats

    TexasFats NRA, TSRA, SAF

    Sep 14, 2006
    Austin, TX
    I guarantee that, if HR 822 passes and becomes law, Barbara Boxer will be right back next year with her S 176, that establishes nationwide standards for CCW licensure, including a requirement that people wanting the license must "show need" to carry. In other words, it would roll back every state that is now "shall issue" to "may issue" status.

    Plus, other requirements, like training and--possibly--insurance, would become much more onerous and expensive.

    If HR 822 passes the Senate and is signed by President Obama, then we had better get ready for the fight of our lives over CCW.
  6. 1gewehr


    Mar 22, 2006
    Mid TN
    Do you REALLY want the ATF to be able to determine when and where you can carry? Perhaps you would like them to have a list of firearms that can be legally carried, and only those on the list could be carried? How about a registration of all the firearms you intend to use for CCW?
    It gets worse from there.
    No thank you! this is a BAD bill.
  7. Acujeff


    Jan 1, 2000
    Boston, MA
    Most of the misguided, unfounded, and incorrect characterizations circulating lately regarding H.R. 822 have come from the anti-gun groups and media. However, a small number of vocal and supposedly "pro-gun" groups continue to report falsehoods, despite clear evidence to refute their assertions. Though they claim to be on the side of America's gun owners and the Second Amendment, their stance on this measure proves otherwise.

    One group claimed H.R. 822 would include anti-gun amendments that would create "disastrous federally mandated infringements on our rights."

    But the House Judiciary has already considered amendments to H.R. 822, and all anti-gun amendments offered that would weaken or gut the legislation were defeated.

    The same group warns of "a 'study' to control firearm sales over the internet," and decries a "review" process that they claim will provide "a perfect opportunity for more changes." In reality, there was no amendment to study firearm sales over the internet. Period. And the "review" they speak of has nothing to do with adding new anti-gun provisions. The amendment referred to only requires a study of the law's effects, and that study would take place after the law is in effect.

    Another group is trying to insinuate that anti-gunners in Congress will support the bill in order to limit our gun rights. In evaluating this ludicrous accusation, please consider that H.R. 822 has not just 245 cosponsors, but 245 pro-gun cosponsors. And -- just as telling -- none of the stalwart anti-gun representatives have signed on. In addition, well known anti-gun groups, including the Brady Campaign and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, have made killing H.R. 822 their top legislative priority. There is no hidden anti-gun counter-plot going on here.

    Opponents of the legislation also claim that it tramples on each "states' rights." But states don't have rights, only powers. And while many anti-gun lawmakers who've long pushed national gun bans, national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of "states' rights" to oppose this bill, several provisions of the Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the 14th Amendment (please see related article from a recent Grassroots Alert).

    Again, and for the record:

    H.R. 822 is a GOOD bill and is GOOD for gun owners. The bill ENHANCES Americans' right to self-defense by enabling millions of permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home states.

    There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense outside the home. H.R. 822 would require states to recognize each others' lawfully-issued carry permits, just as they recognize driver's licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

    H.R. 822 DOES NOT:

    Create a federal licensing or registration system;
    Establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit;
    Involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry permit;
    Destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

    H.R. 822 is headed to the House floor. Please IMMEDIATELY contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest possible consideration of H.R. 822.
  8. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    The people pushing this bill need to get their heads out of their arses. The Second Amendment is the most to the point, simplest to understand piece of legislation ever put on parchment/paper. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! And what have the people in government done with that? And people honestly believe the liberals sooner or later won’t interpret and change this “bill” if passed and use it against us. Where have you people been living? In a cave in Siberia? You want a “GOOD” bill? How about a bill that say “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE” means ”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE”? Now there’s a bill I can support. :brickwall: :faint:
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2011
  9. wrenrj1


    May 22, 2002
    Sorry, no support from me! It's a state's rights issue!
  10. Yeah, but everyone knows Federal law supercedes State law....just ask the DEA about the recent decision to go after California Medical Marijuana Dispensaries.
  11. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    What I love about State v Fed, and Komyfornia is a perfect example, is; if the fed doesn’t like what the state is doing (Marihuana decimalization) the feds and courts say fed law supersedes state and local law. However! If the fed likes what the state or local law is doing (gun control) than the fed and courts say its stat’s rights. What is even more screwed up is state’s don’t have rights only The People do.

    So now the feds want to pass a bill telling states they have to honor other states CCW. Sounds really good in theory. As soon as that is done the fed will start telling the states what The People need to do to have the ”PRIVILEGE” of CARRYING a firearm. Carry will be made to include open carry and down the slippery slope we go. Anyone with half a brain knows the “interoperation” of the final bill will be decided by liberal judges. One more in the Supreme Court and there goes CCW out the window nationwide.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2011
  12. wrenrj1


    May 22, 2002
    You are correct, however that's because there's a federal law already in place. And to clarify, federal law does not supersede state law, but states cannot enact laws that are more strict than federal law.
  13. Jerry

    Jerry Staff Member Moderator Millennium Member

    Dec 21, 1998
    Marihuana was actually legal in all 56 states (thank you Obama for the extra 4) before the feds made it illegal. So federal law does not supersede state law but if state law says something is legal and federal says it is illegal federal law supersedes state law. :rofl:

    Federal law states whole classes of firearms cannot be banned. Comeyfornia does! That's “stricter” state law than federal law and the courts say its OK.

    Kind of blows a hole in your theory. :whistling:
  14. NEOH212

    NEOH212 Diesel Girl

    Mar 25, 2008
    North East Ohio
    Amen to that! :agree: