Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

This is a discussion on Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; The fact that each of the proposed amendments will only get 10 minutes debate makes me think that the vote on them is merely procedural ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 78
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: Congress to vote on Nat'l CCW Nov. 15

  1. #61
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,952
    The fact that each of the proposed amendments will only get 10 minutes debate makes me think that the vote on them is merely procedural and the amendments have no chance of passing.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by phreddy View Post
    The fact that each of the proposed amendments will only get 10 minutes debate makes me think that the vote on them is merely procedural and the amendments have no chance of passing.
    Agreed. If you read them, they are almost laughable. Each of them reads like an attempt to effectively negate the bill. If the bill has enough support to pass, the same supporters would likely vote against them. To me they look like a CYA line to be able to say, 'I tried to oppose this'.


    Sent from my BlackBerry using Tapatalk

  4. #63
    New Member Array april's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Marshalls Creek PA
    Posts
    1

    Lightbulb HR822 Passed




    Watching the whole damn thing on C span today from 11am to 530pm. Well it passed the house not sure what happens now.
    But for all those who thing gettin the FEDs involved is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with that. Its your god giving right to carry now you can carry no matter where you go, Unless posted. I think it one step close to being free again. Since we're really not, You're worried about the Feds? I'm worried about the states. Some make more laws than others, Soon in some it will be illegal to breathe if they get their ways( New Jersey) I love my home state but they over do it.

  5. #64
    Member Array SamF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    49
    What happens next? This bill passed in the House by 272-154 which falls short of a veto proof majority. It is now waiting for Sen. Reid to schedule it for debate on the Senate floor. He doesn't have to schedule it but not doing so would likely result in the House Leader ignoring bills that the Senate passes so don't count on this happening. Some delays are more likely to occur. I would give better than 50/50 odds that the Senate will pass it because there are a handful of Democrats that still support gun rights and very few Republicans that don't. The biggest obstacle that I see is Obama's veto. I have heard many arguments suggesting that he will veto it and none that he won't. We will just have to wait and see if he plans to make this a Waterloo moment.

  6. #65
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,757
    Quote Originally Posted by april View Post

    Watching the whole damn thing on C span today from 11am to 530pm. Well it passed the house not sure what happens now.
    Welcome to the forum and thank you for the update.
    But for all those who thing gettin the FEDs involved is a bad thing. It has nothing to do with that. Its your god giving right to carry now you can carry no matter where you go, Unless posted. I think it one step close to being free again. Since we're really not, You're worried about the Feds? I'm worried about the states. Some make more laws than others, Soon in some it will be illegal to breathe if they get their ways( New Jersey) I love my home state but they over do it.
    Well said, in my opinion. Some here will agree that this is a good thing, some won't.

    Quote Originally Posted by SamF
    What happens next? <snip> The biggest obstacle that I see is Obama's veto. I have heard many arguments suggesting that he will veto it and none that he won't. We will just have to wait and see if he plans to make this a Waterloo moment.
    I guess now we wait and see. It will be a long, slow progression. As a lawyer I hired once said, the wheels of the legal system turn very slowly. In regards to whether Obama will veto or not, I guess we too shall see. Of course you are going to see lots of comments saying he will veto it here as the majority of the forum base is highly conservative. In the grand scheme of things, I think he has bigger problems to deal with and a law designed to help people may not be automatically rejected. I guess some of it will depend on how much of the old Chicago Machine is in him, with Chicago being one of the most gun-unfriendly places in the nation.

  7. #66
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,836
    Acouple of questions:
    1) Does passage of 822 preempt 2900?
    2) What about the status of the amendments to 822?
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #67
    Senior Member Array Lotus222's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    US
    Posts
    1,067
    Given Obama's voting history on gun issues, I can only assume that there is absolutely no way that he will not veto this thing. I do wonder how the whole "fast and furious" debacle is going to affect his stance on this issue, though.

  9. #68
    VIP Member Array gottabkiddin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    North Georgia
    Posts
    6,869
    House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill.... Yahoo! one step closer to the way it should be IMO...
    mr.stuart likes this.
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." – Luke 22:36

    "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." – Thomas Jefferson

  10. #69
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,952
    All amendments were defeated.

  11. #70
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,836
    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    House Approves Concealed Firearm Permit Bill.... Yahoo! one step closer to the way it should be IMO...
    The bill does nothing directly to enforce 2A's right to bear for over two million gun owners in IL, CT, DE, CA, MD, MA, NY, HI, NJ, or DC. The bill does nothing to benefit carry reciprocity for residents of states that follow VT's Constitutional (permitless) Carry model: AK, AZ, WY, and would similarly disenfranchise those in states considering Constitutional Carry: CO, ID, IA, KY, ME, MT, NV, NH, SC, TN, WV, if Constitutional Carry should pass. Finally, the bill's erroneously manipulative interpretation of the Commerce Clause gives Feds the power to regulate (check, tax, etc.) guns that never cross state lines in whole or in part.
    This bill is an enemy of liberty and the Constitution.
    Except for the omission of carry-denying IL, HR 2900 has none of the above problems.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  12. #71
    VIP Member Array Majorlk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Naugatuck, CT
    Posts
    2,406
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The bill does nothing directly to enforce 2A's right to bear for over two million gun owners in IL, CT, DE, CA, MD, MA, NY, HI, NJ, or DC. The bill does nothing to benefit carry reciprocity for residents of states that follow VT's Constitutional (permitless) Carry model: AK, AZ, WY, and would similarly disenfranchise those in states considering Constitutional Carry: CO, ID, IA, KY, ME, MT, NV, NH, SC, TN, WV, if Constitutional Carry should pass. Finally, the bill's erroneously manipulative interpretation of the Commerce Clause gives Feds the power to regulate (check, tax, etc.) guns that never cross state lines in whole or in part.
    This bill is an enemy of liberty and the Constitution.
    Except for the omission of carry-denying IL, HR 2900 has none of the above problems.
    Connecticut??? There are about a quarter million carry permit holders in Connecticut. While far from perfect, this state is not even close to the other states you list.
    ccman likes this.
    An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. - Robert A. Heinlein

  13. #72
    Distinguished Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coastal LA Cty
    Posts
    1,836
    Not CT, apologies if I offended by association. I wanted to identify Americans that this bill does not even try to help exercise their 2A rights. 822 has utilitarian appeal to Connecticutans since not many states honor CT's permit. It still isn't right for the country.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  14. #73
    Member Array mrjam2jab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Levittown, PA
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Pistology View Post
    The bill does nothing to benefit carry reciprocity for residents of states that follow VT's Constitutional (permitless) Carry model: AK, AZ, WY, and would similarly disenfranchise those in states considering Constitutional Carry: CO, ID, IA, KY, ME, MT, NV, NH, SC, TN, WV, if Constitutional Carry should pass.
    While AK, AZ, and WY do have ConCarry, they also still do have a permit option. I would assume that any of the states considering ConCarry that do decide to pass will also maintain the option of a permit.

    VT has no permit option...but their residents can obtain a permit from another state and use that for reciprocity.

    The benefit is still available to all of them.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,014
    In regards to states that have stiff limitations on CCW, but allow it (I'm looking at you California) repealing their own CCW "May Issue" laws because of this bill...

    I don't think it's likely. While the legislators in those states have an Ivory Tower mentality of how they're superior to the peasants, they do recognize that they're subject to the laws of their own state. Every one of those states makes it possible for politically connected or wealthy people to get permits. That means that the people that donated the most money or provided the most help in getting these state politicians elected would lose their permits... which is bad for business. Politicians want rights and privileges. They just don't want anyone else to have them.

    Another great thing about this bill (should it become law) is that if a state has a multi-tiered CCW license, it must recognize out-of-state permits at the highest tier. I really think this is likely to nudge may-issue and multiple-class permit states toward shall-issue. I don't think it will happen very fast, but it just might spark a trend. I also think it will start to nudge shall-issue states toward "Constitutional Carry". I mean, if anyone can walk into your state while armed, then why shouldn't the ones that already live there be allowed to do so by default?

  16. #75
    Senior Member Array boatail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    va.
    Posts
    696
    I don't like it because of that " national standard " clause. That will depend on who is in power at the time. We already have the right to keep and bear arms, I don't want to have to pass another national standard and seek their approval to exercise a right I already have. JMO
    Light travels faster than sound...thats why some people appear bright before they speak

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

all state ccw congress
,
ccw bill results
,

ccw congress

,
ccw vote
,
congress and ccw
,

congress ccw

,
congress ccw law
,
congress on ccw
,
congress vote ccw
,
congress vote on conceal carry law
,
countrywide ccw
,
nat'l concealed weapon carry law congress vote ?
,
us house ccw vote
,
us house national ccw vote
,
when will the senate vote on the new ccw bill
Click on a term to search for related topics.