·11250 Waples Mill Road · Fairfax, Virginia 22030 ·800-392-8683
Posted on 10/17/2011 8:23:37 AM PDT by neverdem
| U.S. House Committee Advances National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act |
| Friday, October 14, 2011 |
|
This week, the House Judiciary considered amendments to H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill, and defeated all anti-gun amendments offered in an effort to weaken or gut the legislation. The legislation is an important pro-gun reform that will provide for the recognition of carry permits in all states that issue permits. (For detailed information on the legislation, click here.) The bill, as originally written, was successfully amended at the outset of the markup with a substitute that added a number of important protections. Foremost, it amended the language so that visitors to states that have laws requiring licenses just for possession of a handgun, do not need a possession license, which is often unavailable to nonresidents. The substitute also made clear that in states with local jurisdictions that restrict carrying or possession, visitors will not need to apply for special permits from those jurisdictions. Opponents of the bill proposed a number of anti-gun amendments that sought to use misdemeanor convictions to disqualify people from the benefits of the bill. All of these efforts were defeated, rejecting the anti-gun efforts to weaken the bill. Clearly, the majority of committee members believe that revocation of fundamental constitutional rights is not a legitimate punishment for misdemeanor violations. One pro-gun amendment was defeated as well. Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas), a steadfast supporter of the Second Amendment, brought an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to carry firearms in the District of Columbia. As written, H. R. 822 does not apply reciprocity to jurisdictions that completely ban Right-to-Carry. While the amendment was well intentioned, as Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) pointed out, the bill “does not confer any expansion of the right to bear arms on the residents of the District of Columbia,” and the Gohmert amendment would only have benefited visitors. It was the feeling of the majority, including nearly all those who support the bill, that H. R. 822 is not the proper vehicle for dealing with the serious problems presented by Washington, D.C.’s harshly restrictive gun laws. As Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said, “this is a debate best saved for another day and another bill.” NRA has fought for many years to restore the Second Amendment rights of D.C. residents and will continue to work toward that goal by fighting for passage of H.R. 645, the Second Amendment Enforcement Act. An amendment was also added calling on the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study of the impact of this legislation. Unsurprisingly, opponents of the bill voted against the amendment, probably fearing that it will show, like previous government and academic studies, that the many objections they make to lawful Right-to-Carry are without basis. The study will have no impact on the reforms included in the legislation and will have no effect on concealed carry laws. This study will not delay the implementation of the bill, because it will not take place until after the legislation has taken effect. The committee will take up the legislation and vote on final passage when Congress returns from its recess. This legislation will be an important advance in the protection of the fundamental right to self-defense, whether at home or travelling through most of America. Full House consideration of the legislation is expected to happen in the next few weeks. Please contact your member of Congress today and urge their support for H.R. 822 and opposition to any amendments anti-gun legislators are expected to bring to weaken the legislation. You can find contact information for your elected officials by using the "Write Your Representatives" tool at www.NRAILA.org, or you can call your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121. |
With many fewer rats in the Senate, this bill would put those phonies in a serious bind.
Good stuff!
Hey, if homosexuals can get married in one state and all states must honor it, it would only make sense that I can get a carry (conceiled or otherwise) permit in Idaho and all states must honor it.
Imagine using that permit while walking the streets of Manhattan. Sweet!
Have you folks been receiving emails from the Pro-gun group that is against this bill because they fear that once the Federal Goverment is given any control over concealed carry (even if, at this point, it seems innoccuous) they may use it as a springboard to take more control at a later time?
I wouldn’t be suprised at their proposed scenario. What do you think?
I thought the second amendment secured my right to self protection. Apparently, it secures my right to apply for a discretionary permit.
If the government made you apply for a bic lighter permit every time you bought one, we would call that infringement. Even if you could carry it across state lines without confiscation.
Another is that the rats have been chipping and nibbling away for a while because the populace would never accept a total ban outright, which is their sole goal. Slowly nibbling back at them is one way to change the status quo.
I would prefer the Sherman in Georgia approach, but don't know if it is doable until the congress is stacked veto proof on our side.
There are too many voters out there who swallow the lib lies, and truly think these inanimate objects are evil.
This is an incremental approach, just like the left uses to take away rights or promote various perversions. Eventually a case will get to the Supreme Court about paying for a right, and NYC will be giving out concealed carry permits for free, rather than having open carry, IMHO.
While I agree, the real world disputed the meaning of the second amendment.
It has to be spelled out in black, white and legalese today.
When that worthless Reid is kicked to the curb in 2012 and we have a Repub senate leader, this bill will pass, however if Obama is still the prez it will be vetoed, however again, then, if Obama is prez, the 2016 election will bring a VETO PROOF majority to the senate and house and the veto will be overridden...
So worst case scenario this bill will be law by the congress of 2016/17.
National Association for Gun Rights has been warning you that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse.
Just today, Republicans helped pass an amendment that orders the Feds to investigate the “safety” of mail-in CCW permits from states like Florida, Utah and New Hampshire.
If you possess a NH, FL or UT permit, the Feds are going to investigate if these permits are “safe.”
So-called “pro-gun” Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
Over the past two days, amendments have been offered to require REAL ID-type government requirements on state CCW permits as well as giving Eric Holder the power to classify even more gun owners as “terrorists.”
And while these amendments may have failed in the House, Harry Reid’s Senate is sure to put the screws to gun owners.
The Senate DOES have the votes to impose a HOST of anti-gun amendments to H.R. 822 much like they have done with legislation in the past.
While the institutional gun lobby has put its full support behind H.R. 822, gun owners just cannot afford for them to play poker with our gun rights.
By 5-4, "shall not be infringed" became "some restrictions are reasonble"
Now, you can live in your world where the Second Amendment means what you and I think it means or you can live in the REAL WORLD where the meaning is watered down, restricted and limited.
I don't like it, but I support whatever is necessary that moves the meaning in my direction.
Thanks for the reply and information. Sounds to me like there is legitimate cause for concern, then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.