HR822 Passes in House

This is a discussion on HR822 Passes in House within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by boatman Not sure I understand the general opinion here. Should there be a permitting process required for ownership, and should it require ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 59 of 59
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: HR822 Passes in House

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    Not sure I understand the general opinion here. Should there be a permitting process required for ownership, and should it require training to be completed? (Maybe this should be its own specific thread as it is not about this bill, but a general question related to the bill).
    You might want to start a new thread if you really want a discussion going, but I'll chime in :)

    No: Purchase Permit. There should not be a permit for ownership.

    No: Carry Permit. There should not be a permit for carry.

    No: Training. If there IS a permit for carry, there should be no requirement other than passing a background check.

    No: Cost. If there IS a permit for carry, there should be no fee other than minimum required to cover the cost of the background check or fingerprinting.


    This is what I believe "Shall not be infringed" means. YMMV
    Last edited by livewire; November 30th, 2011 at 11:52 AM. Reason: Clarification of the "No" lines

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    yeah. i will look for or start a new thread. i guess the 'shall not be infringed' is written, and unless changed should be what it is, however in my mind, seeing plaxico burress things all the time, and reading about the 14 hunters killed so far this season, etc., having some training prior to owning a firearm and checking if your are mentally stable/criminal etc. is not a bad thing. Not so sure if you don't have certification process when you have 200 million eligible population how you make sure those occur....but this is for another thread.

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array livewire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    2,050
    Quote Originally Posted by boatman View Post
    yeah. i will look for or start a new thread. i guess the 'shall not be infringed' is written, and unless changed should be what it is, however in my mind, seeing plaxico burress things all the time, and reading about the 14 hunters killed so far this season, etc., having some training prior to owning a firearm and checking if your are mentally stable/criminal etc. is not a bad thing. Not so sure if you don't have certification process when you have 200 million eligible population how you make sure those occur....but this is for another thread.
    If you're going to divert this to another thread, could you post that comment in it, and put a link to it in this one? Could be interesting...

  5. #49
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    I keep parroting myself, but I hate to break the news to you, both Robertson v. Baldwin and Heller V. DC decisions clearly state that concealed carry is a reasonable restriction not covered under 2A..... the only way that changes is if another SCOTUS overturns those decisions which is highly unlikely.

  6. #50
    Member Array boatman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NE
    Posts
    171
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I keep parroting myself, but I hate to break the news to you, both Robertson v. Baldwin and Heller V. DC decisions clearly state that concealed carry is a reasonable restriction not covered under 2A..... the only way that changes is if another SCOTUS overturns those decisions which is highly unlikely.
    Yes, but it does not cover actually being able to get the original permit to just have ownership does it? Heller can keep his gun, but must register it. So registration is required.

  7. #51
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    I keep parroting myself, but I hate to break the news to you, both Robertson v. Baldwin and Heller V. DC decisions clearly state that concealed carry is a reasonable restriction not covered under 2A..... the only way that changes is if another SCOTUS overturns those decisions which is highly unlikely.
    Correct-However those cases were assuming open carry was legal. Right now, if given a choice, there's no state that would choose to allow OC over CC.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  8. #52
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by livewire9880 View Post
    You might want to start a new thread if you really want a discussion going, but I'll chime in :)

    No: Purchase Permit. There should not be a permit for ownership.

    No: Carry Permit. There should not be a permit for carry.

    No: Training. If there IS a permit for carry, there should be no requirement other than passing a background check.

    No: Cost. If there IS a permit for carry, there should be no fee other than minimum required to cover the cost of the background check or fingerprinting.


    This is what I believe "Shall not be infringed" means. YMMV
    Outstanding post!
    I have been saying that for years! why must we pay to get a pistol permit anyways?

    What is the big deal with hr822? Didnt the police get a national carry? I dont understand the big deal?

  9. #53
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    Why in gods name you guys are chomping at the bit to lose our states rights to legislate our own firearms laws and hand the government absolute authority over these matters is beyond my understanding.

    I hope the miserable bill dies of cancer on the way to the senate.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  10. #54
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,843
    Why in gods name you guys are chomping at the bit to lose our states rights to legislate our own firearms laws
    How does HR 822 alter your laws, other than saying you need to respect other's permits and they need to respect yours?
    hand the government absolute authority over these matters
    How does this bill do that?

    Now, I am an open minded individual and want to look at issues from different perspectives and will emphatically oppose anything that I don't believe is beneficial, but so far all I have seen from the camp that is opposed to this bill is, "the sky is falling" and, "the govt is going to take away our guns." If you really do believe this, please explain how and by explain I mean a rational discussion and more than a vague statements about how this legislation is just the first step in some master plan.

  11. #55
    Member Array paching's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Kissimmee, Florida
    Posts
    407
    Carry permits are here to stay, the government is not changing the permit process. HR 822 is a step in our direction. Be happy the tide is turning
    Why?? Because at the last second, the Police are minutes away.

  12. #56
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,337
    As others have said' "Be careful what you wish for".

    I never thought the day would come that American Citizens can be detained without trial indefinitely but so many people think that the Defense Act bill is amazing step in the right direction. Lets just keep handing over states rights in the 2a area and we'll see how far they run with it after a while. It's no different. Hand the feds a little bit here and there and they will take your life and tax your family for the carbon footprint your carcass left behind.

    "Be careful what you wish for"
    jem102 likes this.
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  13. #57
    VIP Member Array tokerblue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    2,336
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Why in gods name you guys are chomping at the bit to lose our states rights to legislate our own firearms laws and hand the government absolute authority over these matters is beyond my understanding.
    - Why? It's simple to me. When I look at the closest 14 states to CT, the only one that will accept my Carry Permit is VT.
    Hopyard likes this.

  14. #58
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,840
    - Why? It's simple to me. When I look at the closest 14 states to CT, the only one that will accept my Carry Permit is VT.
    Its pretty apparent that the Yankee states have the most to gain from the this and see it as a great thing.

    My state already recognizes 39 states, so it isnt that big of a deal.

    Even so, I dont really want the Feds messing around with the permit system because they'll just hose it up like they do everything else.
    jem102 likes this.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,843
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Its pretty apparent that the Yankee states have the most to gain from the this and see it as a great thing.

    My state already recognizes 39 states, so it isnt that big of a deal.

    Even so, I dont really want the Feds messing around with the permit system because they'll just hose it up like they do everything else.
    I am in the same position as you, it doesn't have a big impact on me. According to the state web site, the current count is 36 and it includes all the states along the paths I am likely to trek. The major holdouts being CA, and OR, IL, and the most NE region (the map is almost identical to yours HG). The problem, as I see it, is that a lot of these states won't change their ways until they are forced to and the only entity that can trump them is the Fed. All things being equal, I too would rather keep the fed out of it, but I don't think these states are going to allow that.

    It also greatly concerns me when I hear Bloomberg's garbage, especially when he brings up the part about how the guy in the news recently was a resident of my general area and the gun was purchased in VA. He is clearly trying to target interstate enforcement of his ideals or at least use the "lax laws" of other states to show his superiority. Unfortunately, this raises concerns for me on both sides of the federally mandated reciprocity issue. As I mentioned above, some of these states will never voluntarily enter into reciprocity, on the other hand idiots like him will pour money into the bribe machine to further his interests should the decision be taken out of his hands.

    If I believed that the present system was adequate, which for many I realize it is not, or there were direct federal intrusions, as some say this bill will lead to, I would be opposed to it, but as of yet there are not. One should also keep in mind that the fed doesn't need to start with "good" legislation in order to impose restrictions or take over. If that were the objective, they could simply do it. In fact, this bill actually affirms concealed carry as being a state's issue, it just says that all the children present must play nice in the sandbox.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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

did hr822 pass

,
did hr822 pass?
,

hr822

,
hr822 bill 2004
,
hr822 vote
,
senate vote on hr822
,
what day will house senate vote on bill hr-822
,
what does hr822 mean
,
when does h.r. 822 go before the senate
,
when does the senate vote on hr822
,
when is hr822 going to the senate
,
when will hr 822 be heard in senate
Click on a term to search for related topics.