HR 822 passes

[R_Bert]

House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill | Fox News

[Garufa]

If find this interesting...

People who are unable to get a permit in their home state would not be able to carry a concealed weapon in their home state by getting a permit in another state

That might put a damper on some people's shenanigans.

What about Cohen's amendment regarding those under 21?

Rep. Steve Cohen amendment would allow states to keep young people from carrying concealed weapons » The Commercial Appeal

[Kenstaroni]

I really didn't like how Fox reported on this. They made it sound like no one can cross state lines with a carry permit. Sure you can't do that in states without reciprocity, however they reported as if it was some crazy idea when to some degree you can do it right now and there are no issues. It doesn't allow a free for all on driving with guns as they made it sound like.

[robin48]

The Federal government needs to stay out of gun legislation period. Makes me nervous.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[eapking]

I really didn't like how Fox reported on this. They made it sound like no one can cross state lines with a carry permit. Sure you can't do that in states without reciprocity, however they reported as if it was some crazy idea when to some degree you can do it right now and there are no issues. It doesn't allow a free for all on driving with guns as they made it sound like.

Think you'll find Fox (in general) is not very gun friendly. Stossel is an exception.

[Guest bkelm18]

Shame. No companion bill in the Senate? Guess there's hope yet.

[Guest 73challenger]

SO what does this REALLY mean for us? I can't seem to find the answer.

[Oh Shoot]

SO what does this REALLY mean for us? I can't seem to find the answer.

Likely nothing, because it likely won't pass the senate.

Should it pass senate, O will likely veto it, and there won't be 2/3 to override.

And should it actually somehow become law, means you could carry in everywhere in US except Illinois and D.C. Until the state lawsuits reach Supremes and it's overturned. Possibly be suspended by circuit court until it was heard, just like our first time around with "restaurant carry" here in TN, except on federal level.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/national-politics-legislation/65078-carolyn-mccarthy-proposing-two-amendments-effort-stop-h-r-822-a.html

( just to keep from rehashing same points)

- OS

Edited November 17, 2011 by OhShoot

[Guest sn8kbit]

I don't post much, but once I heard about this, I had to check here. While on it's face, it seems like a good thing, but I really don't want the Feds involved in any gun legislation. Seems to me it would set precedence, and ultimately working itself up to "justified" carry at some point.

Personally, I hope it's shot down (pun intended). Feds need to leave the States alone.

[Guest bkelm18]

Personally, I hope it's shot down (pun intended). Feds need to leave the States alone.

In all likelihood, as OS said, it will be. As far as I can read, there is not even a companion bill in the Senate yet. If by some planetary alignment it did pass the Senate, I'm not sure if O would veto or not, but you can guarantee at least one state would challenge the constitutionality of it to the Supreme Court and it would be overturned, because it's pretty clearly a violation of the 10A, which is actually pretty shocking considering this came from the Republicans.

[macville]

In all likelihood, as OS said, it will be. As far as I can read, there is not even a companion bill in the Senate yet. If by some planetary alignment it did pass the Senate, I'm not sure if O would veto or not, but you can guarantee at least one state would challenge the constitutionality of it to the Supreme Court and it would be overturned, because it's pretty clearly a violation of the 10A, which is actually pretty shocking considering this came from the Republicans.

Seems hard to be a violation of the 10th, when all the bill is doing is getting us back to close to what the 2d amendment says. The states aren't supposed to have the right to restrict firearms the way that they do. Only a willful misreading of the Constitution has allowed them to.

What I would hope is that the bill would get passed, and then sued for and hopefully establish that all states have to allow. Of course, even the pro-firearms judges in the SC don't seem to want to open up that can of worms--even though they know it's right.

[Guest bkelm18]

Seems hard to be a violation of the 10th, when all the bill is doing is getting us back to close to what the 2d amendment says. The states aren't supposed to have the right to restrict firearms the way that they do. Only a willful misreading of the Constitution has allowed them to.

Pretty simple. The gov't is infringing on a state's sovereignty to set it's own guidelines for carry. Yes, having guidelines for carry is also supposedly unconstitutional, but you don't fix an infringement with another infringement. We are never going to have constitutional carry, that's just not the way the tide is going. I would much rather the federal gov't keep its grubby little fingers out of our business.

[Steelharp]

SO what does this REALLY mean for us? I can't seem to find the answer.

Good question. Look here, at post #8: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handgun-carry-self-defense/65059-cspan-showing-hr822-debate-right-now.html

[bajabuc]

it's like this. Congress passed most of the necessary laws ages ago. But they're elected to govern. So they govern. if they didn't pass laws, we'd soon discover they weren't needed...heaven fore fend! the laws that are passed now are ones that only mean money in a lawyers pocket.

[Guest pfries]

Pretty simple. The gov't is infringing on a state's sovereignty to set it's own guidelines for carry. Yes, having guidelines for carry is also supposedly unconstitutional, but you don't fix an infringement with another infringement. We are never going to have constitutional carry, that's just not the way the tide is going. I would much rather the federal gov't keep its grubby little fingers out of our business.

States should not have the power to set guidelines for carry? That is a right protected.

This also does not infringe on that anyway as it is the individual states laws that must be adhered to inside their respective jurisdictions. It only proclaims that they must recognize other states permits and that is still only if they have them.

[DaveTN]

The Federal government will never tell the states when and where you can carry. 75 years after the Constitution was signed we fought the bloodiest war our country has ever been in. It was over States Rights and it’s one of the reasons the SCOTUS knows they can’t force carry laws on the states.

They have acknowledged your right to own arms, but not to bear arms.

If the Feds start trying to strong arm the states over gun carry, it will require the SCOTUS to rule on it. Right now the SCOTUS has split the 2^nd and ruled that you have a right to own, but not carry. By the time the next court hears the case, they could rule the entire 2^nd is not an individual right. And that may be what the Feds want; then states can outlaw guns totally if they choose.

This legislation has nothing to do with rights; if it did it wouldn’t require a permit. It’s simply legislation that could cost a whole bunch of people a lot of legal fees.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]