Carolyn McCarthy proposing two amendments in an effort to stop H.R. 822

[Guest pfries]

Rep. McCarthy Proposing Amendments to Stop H.R. 822, National Concealed Handgun Bill(barf alert)

Just leaves us where we currently are?

[Guest bkelm18]

IMO the Federal Gov't needs to to stay out of it, period.

[Guest pfries]

Unfortunately IMHO it is too late for that. The federal judicial branch is in part responsible for seeing to the Constitutionality of laws made and powers granted.

States have infringed on those rights. Rights that are recognized granted and guaranteed by the constitution and the bill of rights.

My rights as a US citizen do not end or change as I cross state lines. I am protected by and held to these laws and rights wherever I travel within the confines of this great nation.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the

People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

According to SCOTUS

(1)The meaning of the preface ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"):

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

The preface does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause that follows.

JUSTICE STEVENS, IN DISSENT:

The reference to militia limits the scope of the right to the bearing of arms related to service in a state militia.

(2) The meaning of "the right of the people":

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

the right to bear arms is an individual one, not a collective one. Scalia finds similarity with 1st, 4th, and 9th Amendment individual rights.

JUSTICE STEVENS, IN DISSENT:

Stevens notes that the majority opinion does not extend the right to all of the people, excluding felons and the mentally ill.

(3) The meaning of "keep":

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

"Keep arms" means to "have weapons."

JUSTICE STEVENS, IN DISSENT:

Stevens notes that state militia laws at the time of the Bill of Rights required members to store ("keep") arms in their homes, so they could serve the militia on short notice.

(4) The meaning of "bear arms":

JUSTICE SCALIA, FOR THE COURT:

Scalia reads as meaning (using a 1771 definition of arms) as "anything that a man wears for his defense." Scalia interprets protected arms to be any weapons in common use today for self-defense or hunting, not just weapons in use in 1789.

JUSTICE STEVENS, IN DISSENT:

Stevens reads as an idiom meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service."

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SCOTUS has upheld that the second and fourteenth amendments apply to self defense

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,

567 F. 3d 856, reversed and remanded.

JUSTICE ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.

Many things need to change and although I do not feel this is the most direct route it is at least starting down a path in the appropriate general direction. Until states recognize these as the rights that they are we need to fight to expand these privileges and afford ourselves some amount of security.

[mikegideon]

Yep. I signed her petition earlier tonight...

[Oh Shoot]

IMO the Federal Gov't needs to to stay out of it, period.

Agree. No more precedents of federal gun laws of any kind. The only fed actions I support are repealing existing ones.

- OS

[Guest pfries]

Without setting precedents of laws how are we going to have any ground to stand on in order to get the other laws repealed?

SCOTUS won't give a perfectly clear and concise ruling on some of the issues.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:2:./temp/~c112E8GO62::

H.R. 822 upholds the fact that we have a right to self defense although not in a direct manor,

It upholds that privileges we have earned/paid for (our carry permits) should be recognized as long as the state we enter has a concealed carry privilege allowed on the books.

It does not force a states hand to adopt a policy or create a law.

As H.R. 822 stands it does not leave wiggle room for any type of registry or things of that nature. I know this has been a concern for many. It does however require an audit and I quote

“(a) The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct an audit of--

(1) the laws and regulations of each State that authorize the issuance of a valid permit or license to permit a person, other than a resident of such State, to possess or carry a concealed firearm, including a description of the permitting or licensing requirements of each State that issues concealed carry permits or licenses to persons other than a resident of such State;

(2) The number of such valid permits or licenses issued or denied (and the basis for such denials) by each State to persons other than a resident of such State; and

(3) The effectiveness of such State laws and regulations in protecting the public safety.”

1. So the regulations of issuing a permit to out of state residents will reviewed. 2. The quantity of those specific permits and whether they we awarded or denied

3. The effectiveness of those regulations on public safety.

I personally wish it was not limited to permits issued for someone other than a resident as this may well be a more comprehensive and broader look into the effect carry laws have on crime rates. Solid ammunition we need in our fight to repeal other laws and regain the protection of our right to bear arms and self defense.

The only down side I see to this is in section 926D. (a) That requires a permit in the first place.

“and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, 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,”

Edited November 16, 2011 by pfries
Link to Bill

[Guest pfries]

When this was reviewed in Congress these were the findings (section 2) and this begins to set the precedent that this is a protected right.

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.
  

[Guest bkelm18]

You really want the gov't sticking its fingers in our pots even more? You really trust them to do this correctly? Since when does the gov't do anything right? Even well-intentioned laws have a tendency to totally muck everything up. To me, this law would do nothing more than open the door even wider for the feds to control the carrying of weapons. I'm with OS. They need to either stay out or remove the laws already in place. That's the ONLY way you will ever see anything close to carrying a firearm considered to be a true right.

Edited November 16, 2011 by bkelm18

[Guest PapaB]

I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I don't want the Feds getting involved, they screw up too many things. On the other hand, we can't pick and choose what rights are Federal and what rights are not. Either the entire Bill of Rights protects us wherever we are or it doesn't. We can't say the 2nd Amendment only affects the Feds but the 1st affects all the States. I know this bill is about carrying, not the 2nd Amendment directly, but IMHO it's connected. If we can be required to have a permit before we can excersise our right to bear arms, and that right is acknowleged by all States through the 2nd Amendment, our permit should be acknowleged by all States as well. I'd rather have SCOTUS rule that all carry permits are an unconstitutional infringement, but that dog ain't gonna hunt. I think HR822 might be our second best option, even if it does stink a bit.

[sigmtnman]

Washington DC really needs an enema.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Nullication is in order. All the gun laws and those containing the commerce clause as their

justification are unconstitutional and should be nullified, but I doubt enough on this forum

would even agree with that. The commerce clause was not meant to make everything illegal.

It was meant to keep one state from restricting the flow of commerce to or from another.

It had nothing to do to with controlling guns, either. Unless I completely misunderstand it.

Maybe I do. I know Chuck Shumer certainly does

[Guest pfries]

You really want the gov't sticking it's fingers in our pots even more? You really trust them to do this right? Since when does the gov't do anything right? Even well-intentioned laws have a tendency to totally muck everything up. To me, this law would do nothing more than open the door even wider for the feds to control the carrying of weapons. I'm with OS. They need to either stay out or remove the laws already in place. That's the ONLY way you will ever see anything close to carrying a firearm considered to be a true right.

It’ is not that I “want the government sticking its fingers in our pots even moreâ€. What I do want is for the government to take on the burden of the responsibility for the items it is constitutionally bound to be responsible for. One of those things is to see to it that our rights are not violated by State Laws. This bill has nothing to do with Gun legislation and I believe this where most of the stigma arises from. This Bill is about protecting our rights to self defense and puts something on the books that protects that right includes the carrying of a gun. We have no Laws that set that precedent or protect that right. We have a constitution that is supposed to have done that, unfortunately the states and Feds have trampled it.

This leaves us in a position to need the federal government to uphold its position of being responsible for protecting our rights under the constitution. The 14^th amendment states “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawâ€. This Bill is a step in the right direction; it is a starting point, the beginning of a means to an end. This law is being put in place to help remove the state laws that are already in our proverbial pot. Being as this bill clearly (for once) states the scope of its intent, although it does not go far enough into abolishing state laws that are already in place, is strictly about protecting our right to bear arms as long as we are legally able to do so under current statute.

H.R. 822 lays the ground work for repealing the laws that are in place. We all know that a change as large as a complete recognition of our second amendment rights is going to be a long slow war. I use the term war because we have been, and are going to need to continue to fight many small battles in order to win the war. You stated that†this law would open the door even wider for the feds to control the carrying of weaponsâ€. How so this Bill/law only brings the burden that the States need to recognize the fundamental right/privilege that we have. The government has done more to infringe on our rights, like the patriot act than I care to think about.

You do realize the federal government had to intervene in the 1960’s (the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965) because some states were violating the civil rights and voting rights of African Americans. I would have to say that went well and continues to do well. It took the federal government intervening in order to stop states from trampling on those rights. In other words they outlawed certain fairly common place practices. So do I want it NO, I however unfortunately believe we need it.

[mikegideon]

I read the NRA's position on this, and they sold me. I don't even remember their points, but I do remember that they set my mind at ease about it.

[Guest pfries]

I read the NRA's position on this, and they sold me. I don't even remember their points, but I do remember that they set my mind at ease about it.

I think this bill is very misunderstood in its scope and intent by the general populous

[mikegideon]

Here it is...

NRA-ILA :: H.R. 822 -- National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act -- Heading to House Floor; Contact your Representative Now!

[Guest bkelm18]

The NRA won't sell me on it, I can read the bill myself. The federal gov't has no authority to legislate anything when it comes to carrying of weapons. The only proper response for them is to remove laws, not make them. The 2A is not a federal right, it is not a state right, it is the peoples' right. Given that no-one seems to understand that, I would much, MUCH rather have this dealt with by the states, and not the feds. I will be contacting my congress-critters and letting them know my opposition to it. Once a right has been infringed by laws, passing MORE laws does nothing but dig the hole deeper. That's all I've got to say on that.

Edited November 16, 2011 by bkelm18

[Guest 6.8 AR]

What Congress tends to do is muddy the water, for whatever reason, when they should get rid of a bunch

of previously bad laws first. New legislation could just compound the problem, in other words, just muddy it

more. Common sense says to get rid of the garbage laws and get back to the word "justice". You can't have

any form of justice when you outlaw everything, and make it confusing and easy to fall into a trap by accidently

becoming a criminal from another source of law. there is a law against almost everything already.

Nullification of existing "feel good" laws. Our federal and state governments love to pass laws against most

anything. Look around. The Supreme Court still has a lot of work to do if Congress won't.

[Guest pfries]

The federal gov't has no authority to legislate anything when it comes to carrying of weapons.

That’s just it. It does not legislate the carrying of weapons it legislates that the states need to recognize we hold these privileges and they should not be infringed upon. It however does not force a state to take any action other than recognizing our permits as valid in the respective state following their current laws/or lack thereof.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like bkelm18 said. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Is that not clear enough?

No more federal, state or local legislation is needed. It is already too easy to be incriminated to infringe on your individual rights

to destroy the others.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That’s just it. It does not legislate the carrying of weapons it legislates that the states need to recognize we hold these privileges and they should not be infringed upon. It however does not force a state to take any action other than recognizing our permits as valid in the respective state following their current laws/or lack thereof.

So, it doesn't need to be made law, if it already is. How many times does Congress have to pass a law to make it understood? The NRA is aiding and abetting muddying gun laws that shouldn't be there in the first place. You are getting into an argument of state's rights when none should be necessary. That could very well be the intent of this legislation. This doesn't need to go there. State and federal governments need to respect the inalienable rights of individuals together, since the states joined the federal government, and the Bill of Rights already guaranteed those individual rights. The 2nd should be no exclusionary principle. Why is this so difficult?

I don't care if one is a democrat or republican. The Constitution needs to be respected by all. Keep bastardizing it into oblivion and see where we go. A tyrannical dictatorship? Maybe we're already there.

[Guest pfries]

Like bkelm18 said. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Is that not clear enough?

No more federal, state or local legislation is needed. It is already too easy to be incriminated to infringe on your individual rights

to destroy the others.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to

the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Very clear but the states have enacted laws that infringe on our rights and are there for prohibited.

Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the

United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of

servitude.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

As stated above the voting right act of 1965, congress had to set the precedent as these rights were being trampled but plenty clear when you read it.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction

thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws.

Again crystal clear even to the layman, but this has to be enforced. History has shown acts and laws need to be in place at times to make sure that the states abide by our constitution.

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the

foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of

the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The judicial branch is not in place to protect our constitutional rights although this is a common misconception. They have made rulings on the constitutionality of laws through the judicial review process but this is supposed to be the exception not the rule.

Congress is charged with that and congressional powers reside in making laws. So how do you propose we make the changes?

[mikegideon]

Like bkelm18 said. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." Is that not clear enough?

No more federal, state or local legislation is needed. It is already too easy to be incriminated to infringe on your individual rights

to destroy the others.

Apparently not. I'm sticking with the NRA. They are the ONLY ones making progress in the fight.

[Guest pfries]

So, it doesn't need to be made law, if it already is. How many times does Congress have to pass a law to make it understood? The NRA is aiding and abetting muddying gun laws that shouldn't be there in the first place. You are getting into an argument of state's rights when none should be necessary. That could very well be the intent of this legislation. This doesn't need to go there. State and federal governments need to respect the inalienable rights of individuals together, since the states joined the federal government, and the Bill of Rights already guaranteed those individual rights. The 2nd should be no exclusionary principle. Why is this so difficult?

I don't care if one is a democrat or republican. The Constitution needs to be respected by all. Keep bastardizing it into oblivion and see where we go. A tyrannical dictatorship? Maybe we're already there.

It is not a Law nothing in the constitution is a law; the constitution recognizes rights and grants powers.

And nowhere in our constitution are states granted rights, they have powers. Powers to self govern within the confines and framework set forth in and by the constitution.

Congress has always had to pass laws to make sure states don’t overstep their bounds by infringing on our rights. This is why we have the articles of the constitution. To grant the powers to each of the branches and lay out the framework as to what each branch is responsible for. Congress holds the power to enact laws protecting and guaranteeing the rights of individuals, and the powers granted to the states that are recognized within the constitution.

You state “keep bastardizing it into oblivion and see where we goâ€

By not having and allowing congress to act upon the powers that our constitution has granted it what are we doing? Rasterizing the very document that you are saying gives us those rights.

Not only do all of the amendments carry the same weight, all of the articles do as well. Why is this so difficult?

Allow the branches to do their jobs especially when the are doing them in a manner as to balance the checks and balances that were built into the constitution.

You are absolutely right,

The bill of rights guarantees us those individual rights, rights that have been stripped by the states. Congress has a duty and obligation under Article 1 Section 8 to see to it that we keep those rights and that they are not infringed upon.

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the

foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of

The United Statesâ€

These rights have been infringed and therefore congress needs to enact laws to stifle and stop the attempts of the states to infringe and or take them away. By not allowing this we will end up in a tyrannical dictatorship.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I understand your point of view, and you are right,

except the Constitution restricts the powers and

limits the ability of state and federal governments

to pass laws which infringes on it's principles set

forth. There are too many examples where the

federal government has usurped powers by enacting

bogus law by relying on wrong interpretations of

certain "clauses". One more law being passed

doesn't fix existing law. It makes other laws have

teeth you don't want. Plain english law should be

good enough for this capitalist based society.

Mud can stay in the river bottom, as far as I'm

concerned.

Pfries, we agree in principle. The difference is in

the way to do it. The 2nd Amendment already

answers the problem. Unconstitutional laws need

to be nullified. Period

I'm sure someone like Shakespeare had something

to say on this kind of subject.

I'm sorry, but the NRA needs to be taking a

different approach on this. They are part of the

problem in this case.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

On the surface, it seems much the same argument as universal driver's license reciprocity, but it's really not. The former really does logically fall under the Commerce Clause, but no way handgun permits do.

If passed, guaranteed that several states will run this up the judicial ladder, just as ObamaCare has been. Probably most of the May Issue states would unite in the suit. Little doubt that the Supremes would ultimately nuke it. Hell, it's possible that there would be even LESS reciprocity around the country, as some states may react with more exclusivity, and it would strengthen the resolve of May Issue states to remain that way.

A good sweeping change, if there were to be one, would be to mandate all states to be Shall Issue. Better would be universal constitutional carry. But either of these would suffer same outcome as above through the courts.

But overall, what the Fed may grant is always just a precedent for what the Fed may ban. Who governs best governs least, and nowhere is this more true than with gun laws and the federal government.

- OS