H.R. 822 A Trojan Horse?

Is H.R. 822 A Trojan Horse? What does Gun Owners of America say about H.R. 822, the NRA is supporting this bill..

Quote:

---

Some well-meaning, but in my opinion very misguided pro-gunners are working to pass a bill that could turn into a Trojan Horse for more gun control.

Of course, I’m talking about H.R. 822, the so-called “National Reciprocity Act,” which could open the flood gates of gun control.

I’m calling it the National CCW Registration Act.

While the idea that all states should recognize a concealed weapons permit is sound public policy, the use of the anti-gun federal bureaucracy to implement it is simply foolish.

Once the Federal Government is in the business of setting the standards for concealed carry permits, it’s only a matter of time before they start using that power to restrict our rights.

Now you may hear arguments that this bill doesn’t do that, and maybe that’s true … for now.

Even worse, once this bill starts moving, anyone can amend the bill with anything … and no legislation can bind a future Congress in any way. And that doesn’t count what Obamacrats in the Department of Justice might dream up as the “regulations” to carry out the legislative “intent.”

I know many of you are frustrated that you can carry in some states but not others — I’m frustrated, too.

I carry concealed every day, everywhere I go, and have worked to expand the ability of citizens to carry in dozens of states.

I believe I should be able to carry concealed — without a permit — in all 50 states. That’s what “bear arms” means. Believe me, that’s a long-term policy goal for the National Association for Gun Rights.

But mark my words, H.R. 822, the National CCW Registration Act, will become nothing more than a Trojan Horse for even more federal gun control.

I understand that many who support this bill sincerely just want their right to carry respected — but cannot due to the fact that their state or another won’t do the right thing.

But the devil is truly in the details… and the details are where H.R. 822 gets sticky.

This bill isn’t just about the right to carry for self defense — it’s a battle over the role of government and the ability to restrict our Second Amendment rights.

Once gun owners let the Obamacrats start mandating whether states recognize permit reciprocity, they will want to mandate what it takes to get and keep those permits.

We’re talking about:

More onerous standards to acquire a permit, so that only FBI agents can pass muster (look at New York’s permit system);
Higher fees;
More training requirements;
A demonstration of “Need” for a permit;
More frequent renewal periods;
Federally-mandated waiting periods;
A national database of all permit holders, accessible by Attorney General Eric Holder;
An extensive, federally-created list of Criminal Safezones, where only criminals will carry and where law-abiding gun owners are vulnerable;
The list of potential problems is endless.
Not to mention this legislation would shred the Constitutional Carry provisions that are on the books in Arizona, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

It doesn’t stop with just concealed carry. They’ll co-opt the bill to expand the national Brady Registration Check system to block military veterans with PTSD or individuals with misdemeanor convictions from even OWNING firearms — much less use them for self defense

---

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/h-r...-trojan-horse/

Most states already do honor other state's permits... so really there isn't much point for this bill, and they are right it does set a precedent against states rights.

I think the GOA makes very good points, I agree.

2nd Amendment should be the only "permit" you need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

Most states already do honor other state's permits... so really there isn't much point for this bill, and they are right it does set a precedent against states rights.

I think the GOA makes very good points, I agree.

---

I agree. There is no apparent point to this. Therefor the real point is not readily apparent.

The only blanket law I would care to see is the recognition of the Right to Carry in any manner and in any place that a US Resident chooses. A law that would prohibit any and all infringement on that right.

I am seeing similar posts on a very large number of websites and forums suggesting that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse. If you Google “H.R. 822 Trojan Horse” you will get 51,900 results. Surprisingly these posts all have strange similarities and if you read them carefully, you will see that they all come from the same source. These postings all have the same false and misleading statements. With all the false information and dirty tricks being done by the anti-gun lobby, I believe that these Trojan Horse postings are a false flag blitz by the anti-gun groups as a ploy to get gun owners to lobby against H.R. 822. Don't let them fool you! For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

---

Interesting,,
First post in support of more Federal Laws in an area that the Federal Government should not be at all involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcosmar

Interesting,,
First post in support of more Federal Laws in an area that the Federal Government should not be at all involved.

---

This proposed law is at least a step in the right direction. The other choice is to oppose it and let things stand as they are.

“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. The RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved by) the people.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

The United States Constitution
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
· · ·
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
[The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."]
The Amendments
AMENDMENT II - Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
AMENDMENT X - 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.
AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 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.
· · ·
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

This proposed law is at least a step in the right direction. The other choice is to oppose it and let things stand as they are.

“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. The RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved by) the people.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

---

It is not a "step in the right direction", it is a continuing march in the same direction.

A step in the right direction would be repealing any and all laws concerning the Right to Carry..
Regardless of state lines, arbitrary boundaries or manner of carry. (open or concealed).

Not another Federal law that would standardize requirements and restrictions nationwide. Let alone the data base that would be necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

For my part, I am going to stick with the NRA on this one. I will continue to support passage and fight like hell against any changes to H.R. 822.

---

The NRA is not our friend. They were infiltrated, sold out, whatever, long ago.

There should not be a single piece of federal or state level legislation on the books beyond the 2a. It works fine for VT and AK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merk

The NRA is not our friend. They were infiltrated, sold out, whatever, long ago.

There should not be a single piece of federal or state level legislation on the books beyond the 2a. It works fine for VT and AK.

---

That ^

What does Gun owners of America say about this?

Here is what leaving it up to the States does!

Currently there are eleven (11) states that do not recognize concealed weapons carry permits issued by any other states in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (CA, CT, HI, IL MA, MD, NJ, NY, OR, RI, & WI) Of these one (IL) does not have any provisions for issuing concealed weapons carry permits and does not allow concealed weapons carry. Conversely, there are eleven (11) states that honor all other states' concealed weapons carry permits in compliance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. (AK, AZ, IA, ID, IN, MI, MO, OK, SD, TN, & UT). One state (VT) does not require a permit for concealed weapons carry and therefore does not issue concealed weapons carry permits. The remaining twenty-seven (27) states recognize some other states' concealed weapons carry permits but do not recognize other states' concealed weapons carry permits, again in violation of Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. These remaining 27 states are also not consistent with each other thus creating a mind-numbing and constantly changing environment for travelers with valid state issued permits for concealed weapons carry. In some states, you can not even possess a handgun without a permit and permits are only issued to residents with a “demonstrated need”; effectively violating residents' U.S. Constitutional, 2nd Amendment rights . We should have the right to protect ourselves in any state while traveling or on vacation. All but one state have passed concealed carry laws because the right to self-defense does not end when one leaves their home. However, as listed earlier, interstate recognition of those permits is not uniform, is in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and creates great confusion and potential safety and legal problems for the traveler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

Here is what leaving it up to the States does!

---

Then eliminate any and all restrictions on concealed or open carry. There are entirely too many convoluted, contradictory and confusing laws.
The Constitution of the US states that the Right to keep and bear arms. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

STOP Infringing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bxm042

Most states already do honor other state's permits... so really there isn't much point for this bill, and they are right it does set a precedent against states rights.

I think the GOA makes very good points, I agree.

---

To an extent. All of the states that border Alabama have reciprocity, but we vacation at the in-law's place in Kiawah Island, South Carolina and I have to stop at the Georgia-South Carolina border and remove my holster and gun and store them away. It's a PITA and precludes any stops in North Charleston:)

That's beside the strange laws that some states have for CCW. Louisiana, for example, has strange laws about how close you can carry concealed to a church or school and forbid you from carrying in certain places that serve alcohol. I like our's: get your permit and carry anywhere except state and federal buildings!

I like the idea of states honoring my Alabama CCW, but I don't think the federal government should be telling South Carolina that they have to.

Ok here is what Gun Owners of America as to say about it.

Quote:

---

Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well.

Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line.

And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal.

For more than twenty years, Gun Owners of America has pushed constitutional carry (also known as Vermont-style carry) at the state level. Such legislation recognizes the right to carry without having to first get the government's permission.


After all, how much of a right is protected by the Second Amendment if citizens must first pass tests, fill out applications, take classes and, in many cases, be fingerprinted and photographed to obtain a license—in essence, to prove to the authorities that they're not criminals before being allowed to carry?

Vermont had it right for over a century. Any person can carry a concealed firearm—whether they are a resident of the state or not—except for use in the commission of a crime. That’s it. No registration, no paperwork, no arbitrary denials by anti-gun bureaucrats.

And the result? Vermont consistently ranks among the safest states in the country.

And other states are finally starting to follow suit. Three states (Alaska, Arizona, and Wyoming) have passed constitutional carry laws for their own citizens. Texas passed a modified version, allowing for a concealed firearm anywhere inside one’s vehicle, including motor homes. And since 1991, constitutional carry has been allowed in more than 99% of the state of Montana.

Even with these improvements, however, reciprocal agreements between states are written in such a way that an actual permit is still required in order to carry concealed from state to state.

And in many instances, there is NO way to legally carry concealed in another state.

Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life—without needing a permit from the government.

Just as GOA works to eliminate government restrictions on carry at the state level, GOA has never supported a bill at the national level that stops short of recognizing constitutional carry.

After all, a bill that requires states to implement a permitting system risks setting back the efforts of the many states seeking to pass real concealed carry reform.

The SAFE Act also respects the Constitution and states’ powers in that it does NOT establish national standards for concealed carry, nor does it provide for a national carry permit or require a state like Vermont to move to a permit system (in order for its citizens to carry out-of-state).

In fact, the Broun bill will do nothing to change what the states already do in terms of allowing or denying their citizens their right to carry firearms. This bill simply allows citizens who are able to carry in their home state, to also carry in every other state that allows concealed carry.

Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution.

Constitutionally-protected rights, including the right to self-defense, do not disappear at the state line. Rep. Broun’s SAFE Act will simply allow lawful gun owners who have the right carry concealed firearms in their home state to also carry in other states.

---

http://gunowners.org/a09222011.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merk

2nd Amendment should be the only "permit" you need.

---

Nuff said.

The "Scary" ones are the ones who try to "Interpret" laws. Laws that are too difficult to read are useless. That's why politicians love them. It allows them to "interpret" them. The only law on the books should be:

1.) You have the right to own multiple weapons of any sort and to use these weapons to defend your self and your right to own said weapons.
2.) If anybody attempts to relieve you of your weapons in any form refer to step (1).

My thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry:
1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”. These restrictions probably would not constitute “infringement”, however, the specific exclusions would be subject to SCOTUS review:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
3. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in May-Issue States as well as the prohibition for Concealed Carry in Illinois and Washington DC, would probably constitute an “infringement” and should be declared such by the SCOTUS.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”.

---

STOP RIGHT THERE.

The Federal Government has NO Authority to make this decision.

"Shall not be infringed" does not have any qualifiers. It does not say "Shall not be infringed except when,,,"

It says the the RIGHT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Period.
Any and all of the Gun control laws in this country are Unconstitutional. Period.

On a side note all of those "classes of prohibited persons" is being constantly expanded, and more loosely defined.
I know because I am one.

Are we so lost w/ understanding our rights that we'll write law on top of law?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the law of the land. Remove the acts which infringe on the supreme law, through the system, by non-compliance, or by force if necessary.

This sort of deal always has two edges. In principle I like the idea of "the law of the land", which always works well when the law is right and always sucks when it is wrong or when those administering it choose to interpret it in a way that violates individual rights. State governance may curb the abuses I listed, but then people may end up at the mercy of equally corrupt "officials" at the state level. Big deal.

The really disgusting part of all of this is that it is necessary to have to think about it in the first place.

I despise all tyrants.

Anti-gun members of the Committee are already trying to amend the bill to add national standards to the legislation?

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/ant...g-in-congress/

Quote:

---

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.

---

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/ant...getting-worse/

From an email I just received from the NRA:

Quote:

---

The TRUTH About H.R. 822 --
The "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011"

There's been a lot of misguided, unfounded, and just plain incorrect information circulating on the Internet lately regarding H.R. 822 -- the "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011." Most of the false characterizations typically come from the anti-gun groups and media. But more and more, a small cadre of self-described "pro-gun" groups continually sound false alarms and "stir the pot" in an effort to be noticed. These repeat offenders peddle mischaracterizations as the gospel, and dilute the good work being done to protect the Second Amendment by legitimate groups.

Some of the misinformation borders on ridiculous. One group circulated an email this week (Thursday, October 20) warning readers that, "H.R. 822 could be taken up for a vote as early as tomorrow morning." What the author failed to realize is that "tomorrow morning," (Friday, October 21) was a day the U.S. House was not even in session! Not very confidence-inspiring.

---

I thought it was weird that they wouldn't even mention what the "misinformation" was and went so far as to make a big deal about the date the vote would take place from a circulating email. It's as though that error in the circulating email is supposed to make me think that there's no legitimate concerns about the bill...had the opposite effect.

Speaking of not "inspiring confidence."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

My thoughts on the Constitution and Concealed Carry:
1. The Federal Government has declared that some people are excluded from having the right to “keep and bear arms”. These restrictions probably would not constitute “infringement”, however, the specific exclusions would be subject to SCOTUS review:
The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
o Fugitives from justice.
o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
3. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in May-Issue States as well as the prohibition for Concealed Carry in Illinois and Washington DC, would probably constitute an “infringement” and should be declared such by the SCOTUS.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

---

Damn.

That's a great big long list of EXCLUSIONS separating folks from their Second Amendment rights.

You're not Eric Holder, are you??

Quote:

---

On Tuesday, the U.S. House voted in favor of a procedural motion to allow concealed carry legislation to come to the floor for a vote on Wednesday.

The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to honor the American peoples’ right to keep and bear arms when traveling from state to state.

But while well-intentioned, H.R. 822 contains several flaws.

Vermont Gun Owners Cut Out of Bill

For starters, the bill does not protect Vermont-style carry. Residents of that state do not need a permit in order to exercise their right to carry a firearm. But in order to benefit from the reciprocity bill, Vermonters would be forced to obtain a permit.

When GOA pointed out this problem, supporters of the legislation said Vermont residents can “just get an out-of-state permit.”

But that answer is unacceptable.

Why should existing liberties be sacrificed in the rush to pass a faulty bill? Why should a state with exemplary gun laws be, in effect, “punished” for being too pro-gun?

---

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=56532501

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inquisitor

This proposed law is at least a step in the right direction. The other choice is to oppose it and let things stand as they are.

“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. The RIGHT to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved by) the people.

This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!

The United States Constitution
Article IV - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
· · ·
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
[The Speaker of the House administers the oath of office as follows:
"I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."]
The Amendments
AMENDMENT II - Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.
AMENDMENT X - 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.
AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 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.
· · ·
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

---

The U.S. Constitution does not grant rights. Rights are inherent.

This is infringement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merk

2nd Amendment should be the only "permit" you need.

---

This is the appropriate answer, because a licensing scheme is an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty. Government that would take away a fundamental civil right and make it a licensed privilege is tyranical.

Welp, they went and done it. The House added a disgusting amendment and GOPers went lockstep into it. I was openminded but the alarmists were right. From nationalgunrights.org

Quote:

---

I was right to be concerned.
Not only was H.R. 822 -- the Trojan horse gun control bill -- passed out of the House of Representatives this evening, it was passed with an amendment that would open the door to federal biometric requirements for concealed firearms permits and a federally-administered database of all permit holders.

Only 7 Republican Members of Congress stood against federal overreach in the concealed carry process by opposing this bill (you can see how your Representative voted here: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll852.xml).

The bill was amended this afternoon by ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans to require a study be done on the ability of law enforcement officers to verify the validity of out-of-state concealed firearm permits.

You and I both know what this means. A year from now, the study will come back stating that the only way to “verify” out-of-state permits is through federally-mandated biometric requirements for concealed firearm permits and Congress “must” create a nationally administered database of all concealed weapon permit holders.

One of my biggest concerns about this bill -- the lists of gun owners a permit process creates -- should send shivers down your spine: Imagine Eric Holder and the BATFE with a national database of concealed carry permit holders.

It’s bad enough to have those lists exist at a state level. Once Eric Holder and his cronies find a way to request that list from a state, they’ll do it -- all the in the name of “implementing H.R. 822.”

The legislation now moves to the Harry Reid-run Senate, where companion legislation is expected to be introduced in the coming days. I have no doubt that the anti-gunners in the Senate will use this as an opportunity to make H.R. 822 even worse.

What troubles me most about this battle is the institutional gun lobby has been leading the charge for this legislation. In fact, they’ve been brow-beating Members of Congress who dare to question the consequences of passing such a broad, overreaching piece of legislation.

Republican Congressman Justin Amash (MI-03) fought back against the institutional gun lobby for its support of H.R. 822:

"It's remarkably bold of the National Rifle Association to send out false and misleading messages regarding H R 822, an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing. I would support legislation that gets the federal government out of the way of states that want to recognize other states' concealed carry permits. In contrast, H R 822 will hurt gun rights by conceding broad new authority to the federal government to override state sovereignty.

Gun rights advocates have fought hard to prevent liberal abuse of the Commerce Clause that would restrict gun rights... I am disappointed that the NRA has decided to put its own interests ahead of the interests of gun owners. Fortunately, many other gun rights groups rightly oppose H R 822."

Please call your Senator at (202) 224-3121 and tell them you want to keep the government’s hands off your permit and that you oppose federal intrusion into the concealed weapons permit process.

Thank you for taking action to keep the federal government out of the concealed firearms permit system.

For Freedom,


Dudley Brown

Executive Director

---