National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act: Good or Bad? What do you think??

[CTC B4Z]

ohh I see, this is only the first stage...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I am just tired of needing to be licensed to do something that I have every right to do.
Need license to do-
certain jobs
to carry a gun
to drive
to drive certain vehicles
to marry
to many damned licenses period

 

[caverjamie]

ohh I see, this is only the first stage...

Right, not sure when it would go before the Senate. After that it would have to be signed by the president. The house was pretty much a sure thing - the senate not so much. Even if it passes the senate, the president may veto it. There were already two legislators urging him to threaten a veto...

 

[IN_Sheepdog]

It passed the house. All the amendments were defeated except one - all that did was require a study to be done the first year the bill is in effect to determine how well police are able to figure out who has a valid license when they travel - or something like that....

Here are the Indiana votes:

NayIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
YeaIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
YeaIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
YeaIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
YeaIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
YeaIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
NayIN-7Carson, André [D]
YeaIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
YeaIN-9Young, Todd [R]

One error, according to GovTrak on the vote, the ONLY one to vote against it from Indiana was Petey V...

Indiana
NoIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
AyeIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
AyeIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
AyeIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
AyeIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
AyeIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
AyeIN-7Carson, André [D]
AyeIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
AyeIN-9Young, Todd [R]

When are the people of Lake County (which is the only reason he is still there, its not because of the rest of the district) Going to WISE UP and realize the guy is a career politician (over 25 + years) who is an example of what is the worst about a Washington Politician.... The only thing he is missing is a sex scandal, (but maybe he is just better at hiding it than the others)....

Pathetic... Pete the Uber-Liberal.... He should be representing Chicago, not Indiana....
Just my opinion...

 

[TRWXXA]

Nice to see that Sheila Jackson Lee is just as crazy and stupid as ever.

 

[Bill of Rights]

One error, according to GovTrak on the vote, the ONLY one to vote against it from Indiana was Petey V...

Indiana
NoIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
AyeIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
AyeIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
AyeIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
AyeIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
AyeIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
AyeIN-7Carson, André [D]
AyeIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
AyeIN-9Young, Todd [R]

When are the people of Lake County (which is the only reason he is still there, its not because of the rest of the district) Going to WISE UP and realize the guy is a career politician (over 25 + years) who is an example of what is the worst about a Washington Politician.... The only thing he is missing is a sex scandal, (but maybe he is just better at hiding it than the others)....

Pathetic... Pete the Uber-Liberal.... He should be representing Chicago, not Indiana....
Just my opinion...

I'm wondering if maybe what you saw showed the results from one of the amendments (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml) that was proposed to the bill.

A look at the House website (house.gov) showed that Carson and Visclosky both voted against it.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll842.xml

And yes, both of them need to have their employment terminated.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

Emails sent to Rep. Rokita thanking him for his support of the bill and to Senators Coats and Lugar asking for the same.

Do note that Mr. Lugar's recent email to me after a similar request read:

Thank you for sharing with me your support for H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
Congress has passed similar reciprocity provision for law enforcement officers. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 was passed into law and signed by President Bush in 2004. This measure exempts qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. I was a co-sponsor of this legislation.

H.R. 822 was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2011, and forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee where it is awaiting further consideration. I will closely follow the Committee's review of this proposal with your support in mind.

I believe in the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for collecting, defensive, and sporting purposes, and I support Indiana law related to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms. Thank you, again, for contacting me.

In light of this, my letter of today read:

Dear Sen. Lugar,

The US House today passed HR 822 with an overwhelming majority. As per your recent letter affirming your support of current Indiana law regarding the purchase, ownership, and (specifically) carry of firearms, I would expect that you would vote to enact similar laws at the national level, requiring states to respect the Constitutional provisions.

I look forward to your support of this bill.

Thank you,

I actually expect that he will prove himself once again to be a bald-faced liar, but I recognize as well that on rare occasions, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. I'm just not sure if Lugar is the squirrel.... or the nut.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[DarkRose]

Curios as to the can of worms this will open if passed. Gosh, I'd hate to have some not up to Indiana's standards, out of state licensed barber cut my hair.

Apologies in advance...


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNr1eZopzZ4[/ame]

 

[DarkRose]

Emails sent to Rep. Rokita thanking him for his support of the bill and to Senators Coats and Lugar asking for the same.

Do note that Mr. Lugar's recent email to me after a similar request read:



In light of this, my letter of today read:



I actually expect that he will prove himself once again to be a bald-faced liar, but I recognize as well that on rare occasions, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. I'm just not sure if Lugar is the squirrel.... or the nut.

Blessings,
Bill

I got

"

Dear Steve:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011. It was a pleasure to hear from you.

If enacted into law, this legislation would provide a national standard for carrying concealed firearms so that non-residents of a certain state may be permitted to carry firearms within that state.

H.R. 822, of which I am a cosponsor, was introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns of Florida and Representative Heath Shuler of North Carolina on February 18, 2011. This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Although I am currently not a Member of this Subcommittee, I am a Member of the Judiciary Committee. Rest assured that I will continue to support the Second Amendment rights of Americans should this legislation be brought to the full Committee.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov and sign up to receive regular e-newsletters.
Letter Number: 7055548
Warmest regards,

Mike Pence
Member of Congress"

This was sent the day it was up for vote...

 

[ben992]

I see some people think this is great, other things its bad. I get emails from pro-gun places that think its bad, while the NRA says its great.

I dont know what to think, so what do you guys think about it?

Anytime the NRA thinks something is great, be suspicious. Like many others I too think this is a bad idea that sets a bad precedent.

 

[ViperJock]

So just to get this straight...

1. We are NOT thrilled about the bill
2. We are angry at the Dems who voted AGAINST the bill
3. We are frustrated that the senate and acting dictator will likely not pass the bill.

Interpretation: We are hoping that the bill does not pass because it could be an infringement of our rights, BUT we consider it a pro-gun bill that should be voted on in the affirmative by our elected officials?'

Just checking.

 

[Clay]

yeah, now you see why Im confused!

 

[Lead Head]

There are a few layers to this that I can't get my head around but something isn't right. On the surface, it would seem to make it easier for those of us who travel out of state more frequently or for vacationers, but it feels like a slippery slope.

Right now, anything related to gun rights, gun restrictions or guns in the news should be scrutinized.

I have the right to own and bear arms. It should be that simple.

 

[cobber]

Two thoughts:

If concealed carry is a right, we don't need a law, we need a court ruling. This may be the way to get one.

If we want to argue against federal restrictions, it's hard to support a law that overrules state law. If they can say everyone can carry, can't they also revoke everyone's right to carry, overruling the states that want it? Can they later tack on a training requirement? A fee and a license administred by the ATF?

I know none of that is in this law, but does this open the door for some nasty stuff down the road?

Just thinkin' out loud.

There are no national standards for getting married, but under the full faith and credit clause, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage (well...). The same with drivers' licenses (although watch out for interstate databases). So why not licenses to carry? Like marriage a right (unlike driving which many states construe to be a privilege).

Why does the full faith and credit clause give weight to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of all states, but not fundamental rights under state and the federal constitutions.

That is, why do we need a federal law for firearms, but not marriages?

 

[ViperJock]

There are no national standards for getting married, but under the full faith and credit clause, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage (well...). The same with drivers' licenses (although watch out for interstate databases). So why not licenses to carry? Like marriage a right (unlike driving which many states construe to be a privilege).

Why does the full faith and credit clause give weight to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of all states, but not fundamental rights under state and the federal constitutions.

That is, why do we need a federal law for firearms, but not marriages?

I know. Can you imagine a marriage reciprocity act? "Sorry honey, Oklahoma doesn't honor our Indiana marriage. I guess we could take a class and get the Texas marriage license too...then we wouldn't have to worry about the hotel clerk giving us the fisheye when we visit you sister in Tulsa..."

Seriously though,
I think we will know if it is a good thing if Obama vetoes it. Unfortunately, at that point, it will be vetoed... at least we will know for sure then!

 

[ATM]

Not everything which seems good or even gets us a new priviledge is good.

Temporary personal benefit prolongs and entrenches the bad precedent which should have been addressed instead.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe I'm in the minority, and possibly for a good reason, but I don't see this as a bad thing. Governmental overreach, sure, that's bad, but what I'm seeing happen here is that the states are being told, "You agreed to the Constitution. It specifies that you will acknowledge and respect the RKBA (among others) and that you will not abridge the rights or privileges of American citizens. We, the Congress of the United States, are now instructing that you will do what you agreed to do: Respect the Constitution."

They're doing the Congressional thing, which is to say, they're half-assing it. They are not telling IL that they must offer a CC license/permit/whatever. They're still requiring a permission slip and not respecting the rights that VT always has and that AK, AZ, and WY now honor. They're doing it the way they do everything else-via the Commerce clause, but with all of those detriments, the distilled version is, "You will honor the acts of other states."

I would be in agreement with the vocal majority here if they were passing a new law that ordered compliance by all states with something unaddressed in the Constitution, such as the Obamacare fiasco of several months ago. Holding the states' feet to the fire, however, seems to me to be a positive thing. I'm aware of the slippery slope. This particular one, however, I think moves in our direction. "Obey the Constitution as you agreed to do."



Blessings,
Bill

 

[MTC]

Thanks to both of you for articulating two points of view along parallel paths, acknowledged here.

... They're doing the Congressional thing, which is to say, they're half-assing it. They are not telling IL that they must offer a CC license/permit/whatever. They're still requiring a permission slip and not respecting the rights that VT always has and that AK, AZ, and WY now honor. They're doing it the way they do everything else-via the Commerce clause, but with all of those detriments, the distilled version is, "You will honor the acts of other states."

I would be in agreement with the vocal majority here if they were passing a new law that ordered compliance by all states with something unaddressed in the Constitution, such as the Obamacare fiasco of several months ago. Holding the states' feet to the fire, however, seems to me to be a positive thing. I'm aware of the slippery slope. This particular one, however, I think moves in our direction. "Obey the Constitution as you agreed to do."

Understood. Put another way, if you (we) must have licensing, full faith and credit shall be given (sort of).

So it can be looked at as a "pro gun" bill, and it is always gratifying to watch those like the louse Lautenberg (D-NJ) and 'shoulder thing that goes up' McCarthy (D-NY) squeal in agony and torment at the prospect of the people they hold in such contempt having their privileges expanded in any manner. However, it doesn't really help us get our rights back.

Temporary personal benefit prolongs and entrenches the bad precedent which should have been addressed instead.

That precedent being the codification of statutes mandating the application for and proof of possession of a license or permit as a prerequisite for the exercise of a fundamental right specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the United States and nearly all state constitutions.
Thus the idea that a right can be licensed - which, by definition, turns it into a privilege - and still remain a right, becomes further entrenched.

Although it may be of some marginal benefit to some members here, I don't care if the bill passes or not.

If you have to apply for permission, you do not have a right.

 

[ATM]

My opinion doesn't sound as deep and anciently wise when you break it out and explain it thoroughly like that

...but yes, that's basically why I'm not excited about this bill even though it seems pro gun rights on the surface and will probably continue to be voted on as if it truly was.

 

[MTC]

My opinion doesn't sound as deep and anciently wise when you break it out and explain it thoroughly like that

Yet expressing yourself cryptically preserves the aura of mystique.