Among the many dangerous bills that corporate lobbyists and the Tea Party are sending slithering through Congress is one supported by the NRA that not only flies in the face of states' rights to set their own local laws, but is a direct threat to public safety for millions of Americans across the nation.
We need to act now to stop it.
The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) would allow gun owners to carry a concealed firearm across state lines even if they weren't issued a permit by that state. That means Texas Governor Rick Perry could decide who can carry a concealed weapon in your state -- even if they have a criminal record that your state would consider a barrier to owning a gun.
This gun industry bill recently passed the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with a little bit of Democratic help as well.
Americans of conscience who believe in protecting public safety should join us in asking President Obama to issue a veto threat to this ridiculous bill now, before it goes even further in Congress.
We have a petition, at www.StopHR822.com, to send President Obama a strong message from regular Americans across the nation that we will not let the gun manufacturers make laws that benefit them at the risk of public safety.
Click here immediately to call on President Obama to veto H.R. 822 -- we can't let this bill go any further.
Hypocritically violating a traditional Republican/conservative value, H.R. 822 would have the federal government override state laws decided at the local level.
Many states, including New York and New Jersey, have sensible laws to limit access to concealed weapons permits to those who might jeopardize public safety.
But H.R. 822 would allow visitors carrying concealed weapons to ignore such laws as long as they have a permit issued in another state -- even if that state exercises little or no control over who may carry a concealed weapon.
States with sensible laws to restrict concealed weapons would be forced to accept the weakest standards in the nation - and their citizens would be forced to accept the deadly risk to public safety that would result if this bill becomes law.
As leading Congressional proponents of gun safety, we strongly oppose this bill and will work tirelessly to stop its passage. But we need your help. We ask that you join us today in urging President Obama to issue a veto threat and go on record immediately against this dangerous bill.
We deeply appreciate your standing with us in this important effort. Together, we can work to stop gun violence. Thank you very much for your support.
Frank Lautenberg is a Democratic Senator from New Jersey. Carolyn McCarthy is a Democratic Congresswoman representing New York's 4th District.
Josh Horwitz: Foreign Policy by the NRA? The Prospect of Gingrich and Bolton.
Second, it would not allow you to get a permit in another state if you’re not allowed to in your state. You have to reside in a state that allows carry-conceal permits and be eligible for that permit in your own state. Once you have that permit in your own state, other states that allow carry-conceal permits/licenses will have to recognize that permit/license you have.
This does not allow “criminals to pack heat on your street.” If someone is not allowed to carry in their own state, they are not legally allowed to carry in your state.
It’s bad publicity like this that confuses people into making poor voting decisions.
This has absolutely no effect on how criminals illegally obtain firearms. This only makes things easier for law abiding citizens that carry firearms.
Instead of constant attacks on our 2nd Amendment Rights, maybe there should be a national drive to take 1st Amendment Rights away from liars. Lies are dangerous! Lies got us into a war in Iraq, caused the current financial crisis, and are depriving law-abiding citizens of their Constitutional Rights. Let's see how NY Mayor Bloomers and his Mayors Against Anyone But Criminals [or the rich and famous] Having Guns Campaign, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Lawful Citizens From Protecting Themselves, The National Association Against Gun Rights, the Press, and almost all Democratic politicians, like having their cherished US Constitutional, 1st Amendment Right to free speech constantly under attack!
This is not an issue of States' rights but rather is an issue of the Federal Government fulfilling its obligations [Article IV, Section 1 and Amendment XIV] to prevent States from denying citizens' US Constitutional rights!
Paralleling this phenomenon is the fact that gun ownership and the expanding right to carry firearms has increased. I am NOT saying it is the reason for the decline, but it is a very compelling factor to study.
However, the good Senators seemed to miss the results of NRA Sponsored measures like Operation Cease Fire and Project Exile. Operation Cease Fire lowered the deaths from gun violence from 73 in 1989 to only one in the year 2000. Project Exile was touted for its success by the Clinton Administration and the Al Gore presidential campaign of 2000; however, Project Exile was the brainchild of the NRA and the ILA in the mid 90's.
But, on the other hand, aren't these same people who bemoan the states rights to set their own laws without federal interference on the issue of gun conrol whether it concealed carry, or an outright ban to even own a gun in certain cities of that state, cry and shout, and blocked Arizona's attempt to curtail the influx of illegal aliens into it's borders?
I don't understand. One right set by the states...Good. Another right set by the states...Bad. If these same people want the states to have the right to gun control, they should want the same states have the right in deter the influx of illegals into its borders.
Explain that to Virginia Tech.
*Living in Texas - ducking for cover*
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe."
--U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein Associated Press 11/18/93
Compare Ms. Feinstein's comments to this one:
"Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
ECS
Since the actions were not those of government, but those of individuals, the individuals could not be charged with violating the constitutional rights of those they harmed, since the equal protection clause and the due process clause are limitations upon STATE GOVERNMENTS and not private individuals.
Additionally, the Cruikshank Court held that the PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES clause of the 14th amendment did not act so as to incorporate the Bill of Rights as to make them effective against the states. This merely affirmed a prior case known as the Slaughterhouse Cases, decided in 1873, which case has been widely criticized by most in legal academia as being wrongly decided.
SCOTUS, in lieu of directly overturning Slaughterhouse, has employed the due process clause of the 14th amendment so as to incorporate the Bill of Rights as being a limitation on state action. Thus, states may not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise thereof, or limit freedom of speech or the press, OR INFRINGE UPON THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
VA police were quite surprised when the law that allowed legal concealed carry in restaurants and bars was passed and implemented. Violent crime in bars dropped by 5%. About 500% more than violent crime dropped in the rest of the state.
You really haven't read the story about the Ms. Giffords shooting. Mr. Zamudio was not in the crowd. He was at a store, and had to drop his purchases, go outside to locate where the shooting was coming from, and run to the scene. He NEVER removed his firearm from his pocket, so he NEVER almost shot someone! The shooting was over, and he did exactly what he should have done, and helped to subdue Loughner. I wish people would quit using the Giffords shooting, when they are completely in the dark about the circumstances and chain of events.
If your average gun owner saw my guns and ammo, they would see only three modern, high-power firearms with the rest being .22s or military surplus bolt-actions. They would see that the thousands of rounds of ammo is just a few bricks of .22 shorts. They might mock me for not owning a single Mauser 98, but they wouldn't see me as dangerous.
The difference between the two is that Lautenberg and McCarthy's interpretation would be based on fear and ignorance; the average gun owner's interpretation would be based on knowledge and common sense. Which interpretation is more likely to be correct?
Many states, including New York and New Jersey, have sensible laws to limit access to concealed weapons permits to those who might jeopardize public safety.
It's about halfway down. Is it just me? Read it carefully.