More on ATF rifle registration comments
by DaveY on May.19, 2011, under Uncategorized
We need a huge turn out of comments on ATF’s plan to register certain (for now) rifles. Please feel free to use these suggested comments, add your own to them, copy & and socialize them to as many gun owners as you can.
Suggested comments for opposing ATF’s rifle sale registration. You can mail them to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov
Please also take a few moments to echo these comments to your US Representative & US Senators. At a minimum, ask them to send a letter of disapproval.
I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf
This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.
* The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
* Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States. In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media: http://wwwprod-1756134246.us-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/index.php?q=weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth.
Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/02/pentagon-fingered-source-narco-firepower-mexico. These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.
* Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49971654/2011-03-03-CEG-to-DOJ-ATF.
* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).
* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”
There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
This regulatory action should not be approved.
2nd. Amendment Interview With Ambassador John Bolton
by Dave Vann on May.18, 2011, under Uncategorized
(This post copied from our sister site, USRKBA.org)
Note: USRKBA interviewed former United Nation’s Ambassador John Bolton right after the November elections, last year, and before the ATF Project Gunwalker scandal. As of this writing, Ambassador Bolton remains undecided as to whether or not he’ll run for President.
We recently had a chance to talk with Ambassador Bolton again. That update follows this interview.
USRKBA: The Second Amendment was written more than 200 years ago, how do you view its relevance to the average citizen and the country today?
Ambassador Bolton: Well, I think it remains just as important as when the Founders wrote it. And I think we can see from a lot of recent developments, in terms of safety in our cities and around the country and even in some of the challenges that we face internationally, that the peoples right to keep and bear arms remains a cornerstone of our free society.
USRKBA: When you were the Ambassador to The United Nations you were adamantly opposed to the United States entering into any small-arms treaty. Why?
Ambassador Bolton: The hidden agenda of a lot of the people who sought to negotiate a small arms treaty really, had less to do with reducing dangers internationally and a lot more to do with creating a frame work for gun control statutes at the national level. There was very little doubt, if you looked at the non-governmental organizations that were surrounding the UN and the negotiations they were perusing, some of the language they were trying to introduce into the negotiations, that the international aspects of the whole process were much less significant, from their point of view, than trying to constrain national government. And, specifically, and most importantly, constrain the United States.
USRKBA: Recently, there’s been a lot of talk about how to make airline flights safer, by the Transportation Safety Administration. Do you believe that retired police officers and law-abiding citizens, with concealed carry permits, should be allowed to carry on airplanes?
Ambassador Bolton: I’d have to take a look at that. There are ways in which citizens can participate to help make things safer on the airlines and I think citizens would generally feel safer, for sure, if pilots, who were licensed and approved, were allowed to have firearms in the cockpit. I think a lot would depend on what our Air Marshals think and whether there would be ways to work together on that. But I think all Americans need to be thinking of creative ways to keep air travel safe and to keep travel, in other public transportation systems, busses and trains and the like, safe too.
USRKBA: Recently, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives has come under fire for saying that if plastic toy guns look the same and have plastic parts that look the same as real parts in machine-guns, they should be classified as machine-guns. Given this, plus the fact that the Bureau can declare anything illegal with a simple rule change; would you be in favor of having that part of their authority stripped and any new changes, in the law, subject to the law making authority of the Congress?
Ambassador Bolton: I think what we need to focus on is real weapons not children’s toys and I think there’s been a kind of fascination with this issue over the years that have led to some pretty absurd results, even in dealing with elementary school children. I think the inclination, the bureaucratic inclination, that BATF or any other bureaucracy, is always to expand their authority and I think, really, that’s what Congress should spend more time doing, overseeing agencies like the ATF and clarifying, refining and limiting exactly what their mandates are. Congress spends a lot of time doing a lot of other things besides legislating and I’m hoping, especially when the new Congress comes into office in January that they’ll get back to their real legislative core business.
USRKBA: As you probably already know, the Federal Government has an abundance of Federal Firearms Laws and Regulations, some of the executive branch agencies, like the National Parks and Federal Cemeteries go well beyond the scope of their statutory authority. If you were President, would you support legislation to ensure that the Second Amendment Rights of all citizens are protected on Federal Property and in Federal facilities, not including the courts?
Ambassador Bolton: I think this is a very important area and we’ve seen that it is possible to carry firearms on to National Parks and other National properties and, actually the level of safety has gone up. So I think this is something that really has to have attention paid to it, the people who have tried to restrict the use of the carrying of firearms have really been perusing an agenda that hasn’t seen much review or over-sight in recent years, so I’m hoping that we can change that.
USRKBA: Do you feel that there are any new laws that we need or any laws that we need to get rid of regarding firearms?
Ambassador Bolton: Since the Supreme Court’s decision that made the absolutely critical point that the Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an individual right, it’s not a collective right, for purposes only of the militia, as some people argued over the years, there are a host of state and city and probably still some Federal statutes that, I think, have to be reviewed, in light of this Supreme Court decision and in light of lower court decisions. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done all around the country in that regard.
USRKBA: Would you support a national reciprocity law that would allow anyone with a concealed carry permit in one state to carry in all states?
Ambassador Bolton: I think that’s definitely something to take a look at. I think you’d find a lot of opposition to that in some jurisdictions, but it seems to me that’s the kind of approach that could be very helpful and creative people, who are used to a concealed carry regime, in the state where they live, might find themselves in trouble in another state when they really hadn’t thought that they were doing anything in violation of anybody’s laws. So I think this is worth exploring.
Update 05/11/2011:
USRKBA: With Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa conducting their respective investigations and hearings into Project Gunwalker, do you believe there should be criminal charges brought against the ATF Agents who were responsible for letting the guns enter Mexico, especially in light of the US Federal Agent who was murdered in Mexico?
Ambassador Bolton: I don’t know that there would be criminal liability. I suspect the real responsibility goes a lot higher than ATF Agents. So I think Senator Grassley and Congressman Issa are doing exactly the right thing. This looks to me like the pursuit of an ideological agenda by the Obama Administration to try and prove that the US purchased guns and are arming the drug cartels to give them a basis to try and regulate firearm ownership in the United States. I think it’s outrageous and that’s why I think these investigations are so important.
USRKBA: What about the agents who were actually responsible for actually letting the guns go across the border? Don’t they bear some criminal responsibility in the death of Agent Jaime Zapata and the wounding of Victor Avila?
Ambassador Bolton: I think you have to have an intention there, but more importantly, my guess is that the agents will show that they were merely carrying out the orders from higher up and I hope that the Congressional investigations will trace the orders. Even when gun store owners were saying ‘we’re very worried here’, the order was to continue the program and keep selling the guns. And I think that really demonstrates the ideological basis for what the Obama Administration had ordered.
USRKBA: Regarding the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), certain states, two of them being New York and New Jersey have been ignoring this Federal Law and arresting law-abiding citizens and confiscating their firearms. Would you be in favor of criminal sanctions against jurisdictions that violate this Federal Law?
Ambassador Bolton: I think the first thing you need is adjudication on whether these various local and state statutes are pre-empted by the Federal Law. As you know, the Obama Administration is very big on pre-emption, if you look at the Arizona Statute and the litigation they brought against it. So, we need to have the pre-emption issue tested. I think the sooner that happens, the better.
USRKBA: That has been tested and FOPA does pre-empt all State and local laws. There seem to be a few bad actors who continually violate the Congressional mandate. In light of that, do you think there should be some punishment for States and localities that continue to violate the law?
Ambassador Bolton: I think one way to look at it would be a damages action against them, not only by citizens who have to go through this but also as a class action. That’s really what gets their attention.
Commenting On ATF Rifle Registration Plan
by DaveY on May.18, 2011, under Uncategorized
Suggested comments for opposing ATF’s rifle sale registration. You can mail them to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it :
I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf
This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.
* The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
* Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States. In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media: http://wwwprod-1756134246.us-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com/index.php?q=weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth.
Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/notebook/bill-conroy/2011/02/pentagon-fingered-source-narco-firepower-mexico. These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.
* Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49971654/2011-03-03-CEG-to-DOJ-ATF.
* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).
* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”
There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
This regulatory action should not be approved.
NRA-ILA on why some “pro gun” groups oppose common sense gun legislation
by DaveY on May.15, 2011, under Uncategorized
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6793
“As passed in the New Hampshire House of Representatives, H.B. 330 would create legitimate concerns about the carrying of concealed loaded handguns in public by minors. While the bill would not protect the carrying of firearms by minors, it would not actually prohibit it either. This is a key distinction, as under current law, minors are essentially prohibited from carrying concealed loaded handguns in public by the licensing requirement, which would be repealed if H.B. 330 were enacted.”
…
To us, this seems to say that nobody under the age of 18 is worthy of self defense. This is an unfortunate assertion that raises still more questions. What about those 17 year olds who enlist in our Armed Forces? So, a principal objection is that the bill does not prohibit minors from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, which they don’t have anyway, do we have that right?
“Finally, the alert accuses NRA’s representative, John Hohenwarter, of saying that “New Hampshire is too stupid to know what it needs.” This is a completely false and libelous allegation. The NRA and our representatives — including John Hohenwarter — believe that the gun-owning public is intelligent enough to separate fact from fiction.”
…
Now, we all know that what politicians say bear watching very carefully. The above statement can easily be reconciled having said what is alleged. Perhaps they do believe the gun owning public is intelligent enough, and perhaps maybe what was alleged to have been said was said despite this belief… or not, who knows?
What remains lost in this is that there was a bill in NH that advanced the right to keep and bear arms. An unfriendly amendment attempt was made and that has had results detrimental to the right to keep and bear arms. Why? The reasons offered show support for prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms. In the amount of time it took to research and author ILA’s article they probably could’ve better spent that time and effort working with the group(s) that they won’t acknowledge publicly, rather than setting gun owners in New Hampshire back. Gun owners would have preferred results, rather than position papers.
Of course, we know this isn’t the only time so called philosophical differences have stood in the way of good, common sense gun legislation.
Why are some “pro” gun groups obstructing common sense gun laws?
by DaveY on May.13, 2011, under Uncategorized
Gun Owners of New Hampshire recently tried to essentially gut the permitless carry bill.
http://pgnh.org/nra_pushes_gun_control_jeopardizes_constitutional_carry
Back in March, there was this from Oklahoma:
blatant attack on gun owners rights, the Oklahoma Rifle Association (ORA) publicly announced their opposition to Oklahoma Senate Bill SB129 which would legalize open carry of firearms. Oklahoma is one of only 7 states which prohibit some form of open carry and many people, through various pro-gun groups, worked very hard to get SB129 introduced. Now in an inexplicable betrayal of its own members and gun owners across the United States ORA took a public stand against SB129.
Even earlier is the dust up over the Texas open carry bill. There are numerous online discussions about this.
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=94&t=34530&p=413426
In November 2010, we had the Pennsylvania issue. This is a long discussion and it could easily be a made for TV movie with more plot twists than a cheesy soap opera.
April, 2010 in Georgia – we had another dispute: http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=45080&hilit=NRA+sabotage
Mr. Hohenwarter answered questions about this at Snowflakes’ Our Interview with John Hohenwarter
All of this is nothing new though. As we previously mentioned -
…
Senator Tom Coburn, living up to his word from the hearing testimony above amended a critical bill on the Senate floor which passed and was signed into law. That gun rights scandal? Redstate.com uncovered emails from NRA-ILA to Congress actively opposing language that permitted open carry or carrying long guns in National Parks & Wildlife Refuges.
Back in 2005, Montana Shooting Sports Association authored this tale.
In 2006, the Maryland “NRA endorsement” of at least one candidate was the subject of some controversy see http://www.mcrkba.org/WhataCoincidence.html
It makes you wonder what is going on, and for how long has it been going on. While some of the disagreements are philosophical and over language, others are fairly egregious betrayals. These groups take money and effort from members to promote the right to keep and bear arms. At least some of these examples show exactly the opposite, some show petty infighting that costs all gun owners. There are more examples out there and researching them reveals more questions than answers.
What does all this mean for gun owners? It means that gun owners get corn holed. We can point the finger all we want at whatever group we choose to demonize but the bottom line is as members of these organizations if we forgive this behavior – the obfuscation of good, pro-RKBA legislation, then we can expect nothing but the same until we stop funding & supporting the ones responsible.
It’s just another example of “gun rights theater“. Don’t accept it.
ATF again seeking comments on registering “certain” rifles
by DaveY on Apr.29, 2011, under Uncategorized
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf
…
The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until May 31, 2011. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: DOJ Desk Officer, Fax: 202– 395–7285, or e-mailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All comments should be identified with the OMB control number [1140–NEW]. Also include the DOJ docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.
Don’t let this go unanswered, comment on this proposal. The previously posted suggested comments still apply:
Please feel free to use these comments as a starting point for your own, copy & paste them directly, modify them to suit your tastes but whatever you do please comment on this proposal.
and copied below
I am writing to oppose the so called emergency regulation to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE as first described in FR Doc. 2010–31761 from the 12/17/2010 Federal Register. http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf and subsequently at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-29/pdf/2011-10355.pdf.
This regulation is both illegal and unnecessary. Further there is no justification for any “emergency” implementation as reported by the Washington Post:
White House delayed rule meant to stop gun flow to Mexico, Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2010, On-line edition:
( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html ).
* The regulation proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.
* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).
* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation as proposed is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”
There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.
* This regulatory action has not allowed the public sufficient time to comment.
This regulatory action should not be approved.
Dear George,
by DaveY on Apr.27, 2011, under Uncategorized
Mr. George Allen
Candidate for US Senator from Virginia
101 E. Cary Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Allen,
Thank you for contacting us about the 2012 election for United States Senator in Virginia. As you know, the 2010 ‘midterm’ elections were of profound importance to gun owners across the United States. Previously, while you held elected office as a United States Senator from Virginia, gun owners engaged you for support in repealing the firearms ban in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. We were saddened and disappointed that you did not assist in any meaningful way and instead allowed your successor to drive the effort home through the promulgation of a new regulation and eventually culminating in a completed repeal thanks to the hard work of United States Senator Tom Coburn.
I understand that you want to raise money for your campaign against challengers for the Virginia Senate seat in the 2012 election. We at Gunleaders.com have always supported free and open elections and we particularly support those candidates who unflinchingly support the right to keep and bear arms.
Please rest assured we will keep your views in mind as the 2012 elections draw near.
With warmest regards,
Gunleaders.com
July: National Firearms Heritage Month & Teach a friend to shoot week
by DaveY on Apr.25, 2011, under Uncategorized
From Patricia Webb, Virginia Coordinator of the 2A Sisters-
Some interesting thoughts on when the SHTF
by DaveY on Apr.24, 2011, under Uncategorized
Hat tip to Michael Bane
http://pierrelegrand.net/2011/03/01/stuff-to-consider-when-planning-for-shtf-scenarios.htm
Free America and Occupied America
by DaveY on Apr.18, 2011, under Uncategorized
Red Dawn was one of my favorite movies. It’s essentially a “David vs. Goliath” story but it is one that emphatically shows the possible results of citizen disarmament. The bottom line – gun control supporters and those who weren’t prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones end up in re-education prison camps, armed citizens have a chance to fight back. Spoiler: The armed citizens fare much better. The story begins with an audacious invasion by pro-communist forces who score rapid initial victories and seize territory within the continental United States. Then the American armed forces strike back and eventually a stalemate ensues dividing the country into “Free America” and “Occupied America”. As with any adversarial dealings with the US Armed Forces, it doesn’t turn out well for the invaders in the end…
Ironically gun owners now face a very similar division of the country to the Red Dawn “Free America” vs. “Occupied America”. Though we are not able to trace the current political division to an invasion, our rights have most certainly been attacked by an enemy far more evil and insidious than communists. Power hungry politicians bent on controlling every aspect of our lives. They have successfully driven a wedge into the country’s psyche and polarized the citizen’s rights debate. It has left gun owners with a seemingly insurmountable stack of firearm prohibitions and ‘regulation to obscurity’ laws rendering it practically impossible to protect yourself out of your home state. All 50 states have different laws & regulations for firearms, many of them very difficult to decipher. Some states outlaw open carry, some states selectively outlaw open carry, most states outlaw concealed carry without a permit, reciprocity and recognition agreements are all over the map (figuratively) so that you might be perfectly legal in one state, but a felon in the next state having a loaded firearm. Some of the “Occupied America” states won’t even recognize your ability to transport a firearm despite federal law enabling this.
This divided America concept has found some strange allies recently. Some in the so called ‘pro-RKBA’ grassroots community have been attacking the NRA-ILA supported bill cosponsored by US Representatives Stearns & Shuler to mandate states recognize (concealed) carry permits from other states. As previously discussed they offer numerous excuses why the bill shouldn’t be supported and lay claim to the Utopian idea that magically all 50 states will adopt permitless carry instead. An interesting “suggestion” by some of these “Occupied America” champions has been that the bill would “give the Federal government too much power” and that it’s a trojan horse. Followed no doubt by the battle cry “REPEAL GCA ’68!” Ok – what specifically are these people doing to accomplish a repeal of ‘GCA ’68′ ?
Does the bill “give the feds more power” or does it prevent states from infringing the right to self defense? Here’s the text of the bill and a link to the source on Thomas (LOC):
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822:
`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that–
`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
`(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun 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.
`(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
`(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.
(c) Severability- Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(d) above (the one that begins “nothing in this section) is particularly important for the “States rights” crowd. So where is ‘new’ federal authority here? Interstate Commerce? How new is that? It’s part of the Constitution, and has been solidified since Wickard v. Filburn. Sure the commerce clause has been abused by the Congress and courts, most recently against us were the ’95 & subsequent gun free school zone act, Raich & the subsequent US vs. Stewart cases. Now we have a situation in which the US House is trying to enforce the right to self defense with a firearm via the Commerce Clause to help prevent the “accidental felon” in “Occupied America, and enforce the McDonald US Supreme Court ruling upon the states.
This bill leverages existing authority of the Congress and compels the states which have permit systems or don’t criminalize concealed carry at all to recognize similar permits. It would prevent the states who represent “Occupied America” from criminalizing persons who are carrying firearms for personal protection.
How about this – once all 50 states adopt a permit-less carry option, the “Occupied America” supporters can work to repeal this law?
In the mean time…
Since 50 state permit-less carry is not dealing with political reality, gun rights supporters need to get off their respective duffs and support HR822 and work to get an identical bill in the US Senate. True grassroots pro-right to keep and bear arms supporters didn’t get shall issue in the majority of the US by sitting around waiting for someone else to act, they changed the law by getting out there and letting their actions speak. HR822 will expand the political “Free America”, will weaken the “Occupied America” forces and better allow citizens to protect themselves while traveling.
