National Concealed Carry Vote Soon
SELECT HERE FOR TO TELL THE SENATE
TO VOTE YES TO H.R.822 - NOW!
BREAKING NEWS: Ryan Jerome, a former Marine was on a business trip in New York City when he decided to tour the Empire State Building. He asked the security guard where he should check his gun. The guard called the police and Jerome was thrown in jail for two days and faces up to 15 years in prison. Jerome and countless other innocent Americans have been arrested due to the baffling interstate conceal carry laws.SELECT HERE FOR TO TELL THE SENATE
TO VOTE YES TO H.R.822 - NOW!
One bill could change all that. Right now, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822), which would allow Americans to cross state lines with concealed firearms is pending in the Senate. If this act is passed, it will be a historic victory for gun rights. This legislation would strike a big blow to the anti-gunners. It's critical we tell the Senate to vote "YES!" We are running out of time to get this bill passed.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Gottlieb
Chairman
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
If you prefer to donate by check, please mail to:
Citizens Committee for the Right
to Keep and Bear Arms
Dept Code 4880-e-cch-au
Liberty Park
12500 NE 10th Place
Currently there are ten (10) 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) Of these, one (IL) does not have any provisions for issuing concealed weapons carry permits and does not allow concealed weapons carry.
ReplyDeleteConversely, 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-eight (28) 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 28 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. H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that lawfully issued carry permits be recognized in accordance with Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, while being subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State. It would authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state to carry a concealed handgun in another state in accordance with the restrictions applied to the concealed carry permit of that state. This provision protects the ability of the various states to determine the conditions of concealed carry, much like they determine their individual state traffic laws.
The bill would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.
Maybe someday the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) will be forced to specifically clarify the question: by what definition of “. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is regulation and/or restriction of by whom, how, and where that right is exercised, not a restriction? But until then, under our current legal system, the SCOTUS has ruled that concealed carry is a privilege and has supported the right of the Federal Government to declare that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThe power of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from having 2nd Amendment rights needs to be clarified in the courts and SCOTUS; and, unless the ability of the Federal Government to exercise that power is overturned, that power remains. Once the ability of the Federal Government to disenfranchise people from exercising 2nd Amendment rights is established, then there must be identification of those actions that would cause a person to be disenfranchised. The Federal Government currently has such a set of criteria.
Once there is a set of criteria, there must be some means of identifying those people that, by their own actions, have violated those criteria and therefore have been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights and/or conversely identifying those people that have NOT been disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights. A system, such as Vermont's, whereby each and every time a person's ability to exercise 2nd Amendment rights is challenged, an independent verification must be done, is extremely cumbersome. Under such a system, people will be treated as if they have been disenfranchised until the authorities get around to finding out otherwise, since “the danger” has already been “averted”. So, who is going to certify that individuals are NOT disenfranchised from exercising 2nd Amendment rights? The Federal Government or State governments? Right now, the States have assumed that responsibility. However, the States in assuming that power have also assumed that they have the power to add even more criteria and/or restrictions to the people's 2nd Amendment rights. Some States have further assumed that power extends to denying anyone the “right to keep and bear arms” (known as “may issue” or “discretionary issue”) for any reason. Those State criteria and/or restrictions must be reviewed, by the voters, State Legislatures, Congress, the courts, and SCOTUS to insure that they are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people. A prima facie assumption in that review should be: “Are any criteria and/or regulations beyond those at the Federal Government level necessary or even permissible?” If those criteria and/or restrictions are not lawful and necessary, then we need to work to change or eliminate those criteria and/or restrictions through legislation and/or the courts.
Once a person has been certified as NOT being disenfranchised from rights under the 2nd Amendment, there needs to be a way for that person to prove they are NOT disenfranchised A concealed weapons permit issued by a State is currently recognized as acceptable proof of that person's ability to exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment. However, some States have assumed, in addition to their power to regulate the peoples' rights under the 2nd Amendment, that they also have the power (and right) to NOT recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other States. Such action is prohibited under the US Constitution and must be eliminated through the courts and/or legislation.
In summary, unless all regulation and/or restriction of 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, there is a need for the issuance of concealed weapons permits and interstate recognition of those permits.
Our goal should remain, however, to reduce those regulations and/or restrictions to the absolute minimum that are lawful and necessary to protect the life, liberty, safety, and welfare of the people.
Continuation:
DeleteWhile an extreme goal may be to totally eliminate those regulations and/or restrictions, I believe that will never happen because no one truly believes that absolutely anyone, without exception, should be allowed to own and carry a firearm anywhere. Only when all regulations and/or restrictions applied to 2nd Amendment rights are eliminated, could we have Constitutional Carry.
Conversely, only the truly delusional believe that all weapons can be eliminated, by denying all law-abiding citizens their US Constitutional “right to keep and bear arms”, thus creating a safe Utopian society. If they are not delusional, then what is their real purpose?
The Federal Government has declared that some people are disenfranchised from having rights under the 2nd Amendment. The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
Deleteo 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.
To all Senators of the U.S. 112th Congress:
ReplyDeleteI am writing this email to encourage you to support passage of a companion bill to H.R.822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011, in the Senate. There are clear and undeniable U.S. Constitutional provisions that support this measure. Recent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed individual rights under Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, this bill is required for the Federal Government to fulfill its constitutional obligation, on this matter, under Section 5, Amendment XIV.
In the House of Representatives there are currently 433 voting members. On the vote for H.R. 822 there were 272 Aye votes (63%) and 154 No votes (36%). However there are 192 Democratic votes, but only 43 (22%) of them voted Aye while 147 (77%) voted No. Of the 241 Republican votes, 229 (95%) of them voted Aye while only 7 (3%) voted No. I thought that in the U.S.A. we elect candidates that will respect the US Constitution and their Oath of Office, and represent their constituents rather than a political party. I urge all Senators to fulfill their obligations under the oath of office they took under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution as regards Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution and support a H.R. 822 companion bill rather than vote along party lines as they do in governments with “strong party discipline”.
Finally, here are 3 questions, which voters may consider in future elections:
1. Why did 95% of the Republican Representatives but only 22% of the Democratic Representatives support H.R. 822?
2. Given the clear and undeniable U.S. Constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court decisions on this matter; we need to understand why did 36% of our elected Representatives not support H.R. 822?
3. Did our Senators support a companion bill to H.R. 822, National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011?
Sincerely,
Kajika Halkawitta
NOTE: Party discipline tends to be extremely strong in Westminster systems such as the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India. Party leaders in such governments often have the authority to expel members of the party who violate the party line. Other examples of strong party discipline include the French Section of the Workers' International (SFIO) and the Communist Party.
National Carry is a bad idea because it will
ReplyDeleteopen up ALL states when FEDS COME AFTER GUNS..
So let me get this straight - we should not do anything because maybe sometime somebody may make some changes to some laws or Bill[s] that may not be good for the furtherance of our 2nd Amendment rights; but meanwhile we should continue to complain about the current situation while we wait and do nothing?????
DeleteI would vote for a senator who supports this bill.
ReplyDelete