View Full Version : Justin Amash in an ongoing war of words with the NRA

11-16-2011, 06:49 PM
The synopsis: In 2010, Amash filled out an NRA questionnaire in which he responded to a question regarding reciprocity of concealed carry permits in the affirmative. http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/AmishQ.pdf

In the last Congress, the NRA sponsored a bill (H R 197) which essentially forced all states to honor the concealed carry permits of other states if a permit holder were outside their home state.

Amash claims that the bill improperly relies on the oft-abused Commerce Clause. Today he voted NO for a nearly identical piece of legislation (H R 822) which passed the House.

Here's what he recently said:

I circled "A" because I support national right-to-carry reciprocity legislation. The response does not specify which legislation. H R 197 is expired legislation that I would not have had a chance to support and did not support. H R 822 did not exist. Both of those options are unconstitutional because they improperly rest on the Commerce Clause for authority. I support a constitutional alternative.

Today, you've seen what happens when a powerful special interest group is challenged by a Representative trying to defend the constitutional rights of the American people.

You can see for yourself at Amash's Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash

11-16-2011, 06:57 PM
Yup - that's all that runs this country... Its unfortunate that the government has become so powerful that it basically serves as a catalyst for corruption and special interest.
The irony is that the wrongly interpreted "commerce clause" is much to blame for the federal government having more power than it was intended to have.

11-16-2011, 07:35 PM
The NRA has lost my future support...


GOA seems to be the only way to go: http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm

11-16-2011, 07:42 PM
A pro-gun criticism of the NRA:

Keith and stuff
11-16-2011, 07:49 PM
This reminds me a of Ron Paul / NRA issue. It also reminds me NH / NRA issue. I get that 85% or whatever of the population isn't as pro-liberty when it comes to guns as the NRA, but that still doesn't mean I like the NRA when it tries to increase gun control.

Thankfully, at least as far as I know, the NH / NRA issue is settled (at least quieted down.)

Son of Detroit
11-16-2011, 07:51 PM
The NRA has lost my future support...


GOA seems to be the only way to go: http://gunowners.org/a111411.htm

Don't forget the JPFO.

11-16-2011, 07:54 PM
The organization that is making the biggest impact, at least currently, is SAF. SAF is definitely leading the pack.
Just look at their legal action: saf.org

11-16-2011, 07:57 PM
The NRA slammed Amash on his FB page today in that thread. I got on there and marked their comment as "spam". heh.

11-16-2011, 08:01 PM
I think I called them out pretty good:


Well, with all due respect back. You haven't refuted ANYTHING he has said. You are just posting Red Herrings, Straw Man, and Ad hominem's.

Justin Amash: "What is going on at the NRA? First, they pressure Republicans to pass H R 822, which unconstitutionally gives Eric Holder and the federal government expansive new powers to regulate and gradually restrict gun rights. Then, they randomly urge us to pass H R 2112, a "minibus" bill that increases federal spending and subsidies and likely will lead to more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Both votes are expected over the next few days. I will be voting no and no.

H R 822 relies on the Commerce Clause for its authority, but the actions the bill covers do not involve commerce."

How did you respond? Did you refute any of that ^^??? NO:

National Rifle Association: "It's disappointing that the Congressman lied to NRA on his candidate questionnaire when he ran for office in 2010. He indicated he would support National Right to Carry Reciprocity as a candidate but now opposes it. The Congressman has joined the anti-gun Brady Campaign and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns in opposing a pro-gun bill.

Rep Amash said he would support National Right-to-Carry reciprocity legislation in response to our 2010 Congressional candidate questionnaire. His responses to that questionnaire were the basis of our support for him last year. Now he is actively attacking the NRA for our support of this pro-gun measure which he said he supported. HR 822 in the 112th Congress is virtually identical to HR 197 in the 111th Congress cited in our 2010 federal candidate questionnaire which he indicated he would support. http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/AmishQ.pdf

Joining John Conyers, Carolyn McCarthy and many other anti-gun U.S. Representatives, Justin Amash was the lone Republican Congressman in Michigan to vote today against H.R. 822 (National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity) and among only seven Republicans (and 147 Democrats) in Congress to vote against it."

:shakes head:

11-17-2011, 09:15 AM
This is why I like Justin. He doesn't bow down to special interest and he takes the constitution seriously. I get updated every day on facebook with his votes and they are all consistent. He is just as good as Ron.

Keith and stuff
11-18-2011, 02:44 PM
There is the very, very pro-liberty Justin Amash/Ron Paul side of self-defense supporters. There is also the much larger in size NRA, sometimes GOA and generally good Republican side of self-defense supporters. Almost always the NRA side wins, at least against the very, very pro-liberty side.

I was pretty surprised to see an editorial in the Union Leader today supporting the Justin Amash side. The Union Leader is easily one of the least bad daily papers in the US on issues, (it supports no adult seat belt law, no adult motorcycle helmet law, no personal income tax, no general sales tax, medical marijuana, the ability to video record public officials, spending caps and so on) but it is usually just libertarian light.

Shockingly, I saw this...

National carry law? Leave it to the states
Published Nov 18, 2011 at 3:00 am (Updated Nov 18, 2011)

some quotes below

It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to grant automatic reciprocity across state lines for concealed weapons permits. That is, any state that allows the concealed carry of firearms would have to recognize concealed carry permits issued in other states. The bill, which garnered tremendous Republican support (including Reps. Charles Bass and Frank Guinta of New Hampshire), is touted as a victory for gun rights.

Not so fast.

This appears to be another example of Republicans willingly transferring a little more power to Washington when the policy is something they favor. But even if the policy were perfectly flawless, and this one is not, the bigger question is whether it is an issue for Washington to resolve. In this case, it is not.

Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., is the bill’s sponsor. He told Politico that, states’ rights aside, “I think to a certain extent, the deterrent value and the feeling of self-defense … has to be recognized here.”

So that’s now a federal responsibility? Stearns seems to think so. What happens when Republicans lose control of the House and 2nd Amendment opponents start passing bills on concealed-carry reciprocity? If they pass a law stating that no state may acknowledge another’s concealed carry permit, Republicans would not be able to oppose the law on states’ rights grounds.

Keith and stuff
11-18-2011, 03:05 PM
It looks like the Union Leader also carried an article supporting Amash's position.

Gotta love these libertarian state reps in NH :)

http://granitegrok.com/Activists%20Feds%20bill%20would%20lead%20to%20gun% 20control.pdf PDF

11-18-2011, 03:07 PM
The Constitution could not be more clear. All people can bear arms in the US. Period.

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.

11-18-2011, 03:14 PM
The Constitution could not be more clear. All people can bear arms in the US. Period.

I agree. I also agree that HR822 is poison.

11-18-2011, 06:35 PM
Another perspective on HR822 from David Kopel at the volokh conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2011/11/16/house-passes-interstate-handgun-carry-reciprocity/) blog. He doesn't use the interstate commerce justification, since though there is significant case law supporting that avenue, it clearly was not the original intent of the clause. Rather he argues that the court has defend the individual right to bear arms as well as the privilege and immunity to travel freely with a basis in the 14th Amendment.

The theory that once a gun has been sold in interstate commerce it forever remains
subject to congressional regulation under the interstate commerce clause, is solidly
established in the federal courts, even though it is contrary to the original meaning
of the Constitution. However, use of Congressional power under section 5 of the 14th
Amendment to protect the right to arms and the right to travel is entirely consistent
with original meaning.

11-18-2011, 07:17 PM
The Constitution could not be more clear. All people can bear arms in the US. Period.

"We have the national guard that serves as the "militia". Thats why you don't have a right to bear arms!"