H.R. 822 vs H.R. 2900 - a follow-up to our discussion at the meet & greet

[jskp229]

As we were discussing yesterday at the meet & greet lunch, H.R. 822 is not all the NRA is out to make it. There are multiple risks once this establishes the precedent. If you look below in one of the articles from the Stephen P. Wenger mailing, there is a reference to a past attempt to impact the conditions of a permit & make the country conform to the may issue model used in CA. Note the comments in (…) are those of Stephen in his distribution. My thoughts are in bold.

The first article references H.R. 2900 that is supported by GOA. I have a little more confidence in their insight into protecting our rights than the NRA, but I’m still not convinced that this may not have similar risks. At this point not being a lawyer, I just don’t know. Thoughts?

<SoapBox> Think about the risks & tell your congress critter how & where you want your freedoms protected. </SoapBox>

(Not quite as personally verbose as M-T, but I’m competing for inches with cut & paste… Given the volume of this post, please don't quote as a whole in your response - it will be too unmanageable.)

Also, you may want to check out Stephen's site. You may not agree with everything he says, but he has been around a long time & has some interesting insights. http://www.spw-duf.info/

Thanks,
JSK

------------------------------
From GOA: Pro-gun champion Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) recently introduced a concealed carry recognition bill, H.R. 2900, that allows law-abiding citizens who can legally carry concealed in their home state to carry all across the country, as well. Titled “The Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” this legislation recognizes that constitutional rights do not become null and void at the state line. And, most importantly, Rep. Broun’s bill is “constitutional carry” friendly. The SAFE Act recognizes that while CCW permits are the “norm” in most states, constitutional carry is the ideal… Rep. Broun’s bill addresses this issue in a way that respects the Constitution and in a way that recognizes the unalienable right to defend one’s life – without needing a permit from the government… Another important distinction is that Rep. Broun’s bill, unlike other legislation being debated in Congress, does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The SAFE Act instead recognizes the “full faith and credit” protection that is guaranteed in Article IV of the Constitution… (Okay, unlike NRA’s HR 822, GOA’s HR 2900 recognizes constitutional carry and cites a different Constitutional basis – which is not how driver licenses are recognized from state to state. Can anyone convince that HR 2900 does not also allow the federal camel to put its nose under the tent of carrying firearms outside the home?)

http://gunowners.org/a09222011.htm

---------

Existing OCDO discussions on H.R. 822:

http://tinyurl.com/65sqqtf
http://tinyurl.com/655pqt7

-----------

Some additional discussion & articles on H.R. 822 excerpted from the mailings sent from Stephen P. Wenger. I think the concern listed in the articles & those expressed by Stephen are valid concerns over the risks.

-------------
Camel’s Nose, Camel’s Toe?: There’s an old Arab fable called “The Camel’s Toe.” An Arab sits snugly in his tent during a sand storm, leaving his camel outside in the gritty blast. The camel pleads that the driving sand is hurting its sore toe, so could it please stick just its toe inside the tent. The Arab agrees – It’s just a toe, after all. Then the camel complains that its entire foot is in pain: couldn’t it just place its whole foot inside the tent. Again, the Arab agrees. Then it’s the ankle, the knee, the whole leg, then the shoulder. Eventually the camel is fully inside the tent and the Arab is stuck out in the howling sand storm. H.R. 822 is a camel’s toe… Certainly, if H.R. 822 becomes law, it will benefit CC-permit holders… for a while. But once you allow the federal camel to stick that toe in your tent, get ready for it to inch further. That bill creep might even start before it gets passed, as gun-control advocates begin to attach amendments defining exactly what a CC permit should be – or regulating it might be another way to word it…

http://www.mesquitelocalnews.com/viewnews.php?newsid=8410&id=21


*** CA May issue reference ***

Once Again: This Labor Day weekend, many families will pack up the car for one last road trip to the beach, lake or park before summer ends. Unfortunately, many of them will have to check their right to self-defense at the state border. Thankfully, there is legislation making its way through Congress that would fix this. The bill is the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 822) and it would allow any person with a valid, state-issued concealed firearm permit to exercise their right to carry a firearm in any other state that affords that right to its own residents. The bill was introduced by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC) and it currently has 242 co-sponsors and the full backing of the National Rifle Association. By any benchmark, H.R. 822 has overwhelming bipartisan support… (Because of the nearly daily growth in the list, I repeat my objection to letting the feds get involved in this issue. Doing so will only make it easier for some future Congress to amend the law, establishing federal standards for permit issuance [see http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/012111.cfm]. As with the 55 mph speed limit, states that don’t comply will be threatened with the loss of law-enforcement-assistance funds. NRA is skating on very thin ice that could result in the rest of the nation having California-style standards for carrying firearms outside the home.)

http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/30/your-right-to-self-defense-shouldnt-end-at-state-borders/

-----------

An example on how local laws can still cause conflict even with H.R. 822.

------------

…Despite the overwhelming evidence that laws limiting the ability of average citizens to purchase or possess firearms do little, if anything, to prevent violence, Bloomberg said, “There are just too many guns on the streets and we have to do something about it.” Bloomberg invariably couples these vague but loud demands with calls for the federal government to “step up” action. Within the past three years, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down gun bans previously in effect in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, Illinois. Notwithstanding these legal victories, sufficient wiggle room remains for anti-gunners like Bloomberg to continue to circumvent and thwart the right of the people to possess firearms for self-defense… (Barr goes on to argue in support of Trojan-horse HR 822, ignoring a fact that should have been noted by list members a few days ago – even if it becomes law, according to New York statue, it would not appear to apply to the five boroughs of New York City.)

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/16/bob-barr-bloomberg-again-whining-for-more-gun-control/

------

 

[kcgunfan]

The FUD against this bill continues. I have great respect for Paul Broun, but I don't believe that his name as sponsor confers magic powers to legislation. Rep. Broun's bill is just as likely to be amended as H.R. 822 is. Neither of these bills authorize the government to create a national CC license. Neither of these create any government agency to administer anything. All it does is say that if you have a state issued CC license, then you can CC in other states that issue CC license, or do not require licenses.

It is true that H.R. 822 does reference interstate commerce, which sounds silly to me. So, on that basis, I do consider H.R. 2900 slightly better than H.R. 822. But, H.R. 2900 doesn't have a severability clause, and other pieces that would be considered normal. So, you can certainly debate the merits based on that. But, both bills accomplish the same purpose (as far as I can tell) and are equally likely do be amended or altered in the future.

To me, it just looks like Rep. Broun didn't like the interstate commerce clause being in the bill, saw the writing on the wall that a law was very likely to be passed, and decided to submit his own version 1/2 year later, once the writing was on the wall.

 

[since9]

The more I think about this issue, the more I realize that any bill which fails to affirm the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms as defined in our Second Amendment may itself limit us more than help us.

SCOTUS upheld the 2A twice in the last two years, but by a narrow margin. Those who can read English got it. Those who would subvert the law of the land for their own over-controlling agenda didn't get it. Thus, I believe we need something.

If the provisions of the bill restrict themselves to simply allowing any state's concealed carry permit to be considered valid in all 50 states, I think that's a good thing. It will accomplish that which the states have only partially been able to accomplish on their own. Yes, given another 20 years they may get to the point where drivers licenses are today, but don't bet on it, and I'd recommend you not holding your breath.

On the other hand, what will this do for open carry? It will provided greater impetus for states to say, "well, you can CC, so just do that" thereby relieving them of having to deal with the occasional MWAG call.

I know for a fact that here in Colorado Springs, MWAG calls are vetted. They do receive calls on a fairly regular basis, but they do not respond to them on the sole basis of MWAG status, as per the General Orders governing the actions of local law enforcement. They must have RAS/PC before making contact, and MWAG status by itself constitutes neither.

My point is that with respect to this issue, they do things right here in town. Yes, we have a CHP program, but open carry is fine.

I would prefer the approach had nothing to do with the tool itself, but rather, with the one carrying it. I would rather we become a Constitutional Carry state, with basic restrictions involving places where firearms are legitimately not permitted (courtrooms, jails...) due to the high potential for gun grabs or criminal use. I would rather lower the boom on anyone who carries a firearm when they're not permitted to carry. If they're on probation, send them back. If they mentally deranged, institutionalize them. I would also rather lower the boom on anyone who aids these folks in obtaining a firearm. Thus, I support the instant background checks, and would even (gasp!) go so far as to require the buyer or seller to pay the $15 fee at a gun store (who has the equipment) to do the check before a seller can legally sell the firearm. I do not believe the sale should be recorded. The only record would be the buyer getting a background check, and not what it was for.

I think it's time for a poll...

 

[JamesB]

The more I think about this issue, the more I realize that any bill which fails to affirm the unrestricted right to keep and bear arms as defined in our Second Amendment may itself limit us more than help us.

SCOTUS upheld the 2A twice in the last two years, but by a narrow margin. Those who can read English got it. Those who would subvert the law of the land for their own over-controlling agenda didn't get it. Thus, I believe we need something.

The first part here I'd like to agree with you. The second I'm not so sure. It's been awhile since I read those verdicts but from what I remember, Even the dissenters in Heller acknowledged that the Second Amendment was to insure a personal right not a collective one. In McDonald, I seem to recall one Justice who didn't even seem to recognize that Heller had actually happened. So ya I guess there are some, even there, who can read and some who can't, and sadly some who seem to prefer not to.

If the provisions of the bill restrict themselves to simply allowing any state's concealed carry permit to be considered valid in all 50 states, I think that's a good thing. It will accomplish that which the states have only partially been able to accomplish on their own. Yes, given another 20 years they may get to the point where drivers licenses are today, but don't bet on it, and I'd recommend you not holding your breath.

Another down side to this that I haven't heard anyone mention: I have never seen any state issue out-of-state driver's liscenses. Personally, I kinda like those. And I really would prefer States Rights compared to Federal Regulations.

I would prefer the approach had nothing to do with the tool itself, but rather, with the one carrying it. I would rather we become a Constitutional Carry state, with basic restrictions involving places where firearms are legitimately not permitted (courtrooms, jails...) due to the high potential for gun grabs or criminal use.

I would like to take issue here with your theory of locations creating restrictions. I carried mine into a courtroom last week. There are actually a large number of them in this state that I have carried into. Never once have I experienced a gun grab there. Further, how's that "gun free school zone" thing working? Last I checked it seemed to simply create a free fire zone for bad guys. In my world, in a courtroom the bad guys would not have guns and the good guys would.

I would rather lower the boom on anyone who carries a firearm when they're not permitted to carry.

If I am "permitted" at some times and some places and "not permitted" at others, does this not imply a sliding position from the "Unrestricted Right" that you claim, down to a permissive ability?

If they're on probation, send them back.

If they are on probation they are back. They never left. Probation is most often an alternative to jail or prison. I've been on probation for a speeding ticket before, should I "go back?" How about for shoplifting? Tresspassing? Where does the line get drawn and who gets to draw it?

Parole on the other hand is for those who have been to "the clink." Those who are in this category can't legally purchase firearms anyway (not that it stops them).

The greatest gap here that I see is those who have not been convicted of any crime. The last time I was arrested for CC, there was a "no firarms possession" condition attached to my bail. The charges were bogus, the cop and I both knew it, and yes eventually they were dismissed. But I was not supposed to have a gun for the year that it was going through the court?

If they mentally deranged, institutionalize them.

We can't. There's no funding. That's why the prisons are full instead.

I would also rather lower the boom on anyone who aids these folks in obtaining a firearm.

You are talking about me. I have personally previously aided "prohibitted persons" in obtaining these items.(details ommitted to protect all involved) Afterall, they're just tools right? It is so easy to pick up a felony anymore. In some states passing a stopped school bus is a felony. Howabout online gambling of any amount? Depending on where you live, it could be a felony. Passing a bad check... too many stupid ones to count.
Domestic Violence... is a misdemeanor. Should this really be a disqualifier?
According to the state, if you have ever been to detox you are an alcoholic and cannot get a permit. Even just once. Even if you checked yourself in.

Further, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that even convicted felons still have the right of self defense. So, they may not be able to legally purchase one from a retail outlet, but they can legally posess one.

Thus, I support the instant background checks, and would even (gasp!) go so far as to require the buyer or seller to pay the $15 fee at a gun store (who has the equipment) to do the check before a seller can legally sell the firearm. I do not believe the sale should be recorded. The only record would be the buyer getting a background check, and not what it was for.

But should it be required on all transatctions? Even for family members? Even for me to take posession of great-granddad's huntin' rilfe? It's a right. I do not need the government's permission to exercise a right of posession of heirlooms.

I think it's time for a poll...

I think you have my answer.

What does "Unrestricted Right" mean to you? You use that at the begining of your post but then I continually see you restricting it? Are these "common sense measures?" I do not understand.

 

[since9]

I would like to take issue here with your theory of locations creating restrictions. I carried mine into a courtroom last week. There are actually a large number of them in this state that I have carried into. Never once have I experienced a gun grab there. Further, how's that "gun free school zone" thing working? Last I checked it seemed to simply create a free fire zone for bad guys. In my world, in a courtroom the bad guys would not have guns and the good guys would.

I am no fan of GFZs, and would prefer your "all law-abiding citizens are armed" mode. However, that's pie in the sky.

I'm also a realist, and realize that even someone with weapons retention training can still be gotten the better of by someone who knows what they're doing, and in about as much time as the sensory signal takes to reach one's brain. If that someone happens to be one of the criminals doing the gun grab, then all those guns pose more of a hazard than a benefit. Meanwhile, GFZs for schools have nothing to do with preventing gun grabs.

Therefore, as a realist, I realize courts (at least the ones around here) will continue to sport their metal detectors and no amount of lobbying is about to get that changed. I've talked with my representative and as much as he supports the 2A, he says turning off the 1000' GFZ around schools will create more pushback in more areas than it'll solve (I disagree, but he's in office, not I).

So, I change what I can, but will simply work with what I can't.

If I am "permitted" at some times and some places and "not permitted" at others, does this not imply a sliding position from the "Unrestricted Right" that you claim, down to a permissive ability?

Sure. I know it. You know it. Convincing the others of it seems to be problematic. We still disagree on the need for some, very limited GFZs. Even cops disarm before escorting violent criminals into a prison.

The greatest gap here that I see is those who have not been convicted of any crime. The last time I was arrested for CC, there was a "no firarms possession" condition attached to my bail. The charges were bogus, the cop and I both knew it, and yes eventually they were dismissed. But I was not supposed to have a gun for the year that it was going through the court?

Lawyer problem? Or justice problem?

We can't. There's no funding. That's why the prisons are full instead.

Beyond a short period of time, there's just about zero additional rehabilitation. For minor offenses, it needs to be short, but very difficult as in "no way I'm going back there" difficult. For things like child molestation, rape, and murder, they've earned a speedy trial and a speedier execution.

For everything between, I'm not all that sure.

In some states passing a stopped school bus is a felony.

This is one of the reasons our prisons are overcrowded. Can we make a law that says making stupid laws is a felony?

Domestic Violence... is a misdemeanor. Should this really be a disqualifier?

I believe there's really only two scales of crime. One involves the use of physical force against the will of another, and has four distinct categories:

1. Causes causes no damage. Defenses would including accidentally bumping a person in public, moving them out of the way of harm, physically controlling one's children and charges as necessary, and use of non-damaging force such as Aikido and pepper spray to subdue or defend against an attacker.

2. Causes temporary damage. Includes bruising , strained muscles and ligaments, minor cuts and abrasions not likely to leave any lasting scars. Defenses would include corporal punishment (spanking one's kids) and the use of defensive force ranging from various martial arts or a baseball bat to a taser. Note: May include broken bones, provided they heal without long-term effects.

3. Causes permanent damage. Includes mutilated flesh, knife and gunshot wounds, badly broken bones, partial and complete paralyzation and brain damage. Defenses would include use of defensive force as noted in item 3, plus authorized use of deadly force.

4. Causes death. Defenses would include use of defensive force as noted in item 3, plus authorized use of deadly force.

I'd like to expand this later, along with recommended punishments, and adjustments for the psychological factors and the nature of the situation (things are rarely black and white).

According to the state, if you have ever been to detox you are an alcoholic and cannot get a permit. Even just once. Even if you checked yourself in.

Really? I remember this in the CHP literature, but that doesn't sound quite right. Looking it up... It comes from C.R.S. 18-12-202.3, and there's an amplifying statement on page 6 of the CHP guide which repeatedly stresses "chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that the applicant’s normal faculties are impaired." It talks about having been involuntarily committed under C.R.S. 25-1-3
10 or 25-1-311 or has had two or more alcohol-related convictions or revocations under C.R.S. 42-4-1301 (1) or (2) or 42-2-126 (or similar law from other states) within 10 years. Even then is says "The prohibition specified shall not apply to an applicant who provides an affidavit, signed by a professional counselor who is licensed pursuant to Article 43 of Title 12, C.R.S. and specializes in alcohol addiction, stating that the applicant has been evaluated by the counselor and has been determined to be a recovering alcoholic who has refrained from using alcohol for at least three years; except it shall apply if the person was ever involuntarily committed as an alcoholic."

So, your statement is incorrect. There may be some restrictions, but it is by no means "forever."

Further, the Colorado Supreme Court has held that even convicted felons still have the right of self defense. So, they may not be able to legally purchase one from a retail outlet, but they can legally posess one.

I think you're incorrect about this one, too. See Colorado Statutes/TITLE 18 CRIMINAL CODE/ARTICLE 12 OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS/PART 1 FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL/18-12-108. Possession of weapons by previous offenders. The Friends with a Felon thread contains a good discussion of this.

But should it be required on all transatctions? Even for family members?

I struggled with this one. My father and I know one another well. Yet stats show that transfers involving family are often involved in felony possession and use of firearms. If I demanded an exception for my known situation, I'm quite sure criminals would demand exceptions for their situations too. They're criminals, I'm not. They lie, I do not. So how are we to implement any BCs while allowing one person to skate and another to submit?

Well, I have this little ID in my pocket which says I've undergone a more thorough background check than the standard CBC required to purchase a firearm. That might be an inroad.

Even for me to take posession of great-granddad's huntin' rilfe? It's a right. I do not need the government's permission to exercise a right of posession of heirlooms.

Possession is a conditional right. Local, state, and federal courts have ruled time and again ruled possession of any firearm (granddaddy's or not) is illegal under some circumstances such as felony, mental, or court order for cause.

What does "Unrestricted Right" mean to you?

Doesn't mean squat with respect to the Constitution, the Second Amendment of which says "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In it's simplest terms nuclear weapons should be allowed. I'll bet Jared would have had fun with that had he the means to build one. Life isn't that simple, however, and we logically, rationally, and prudently restrict that right from nuts and criminals.

The whole point of a BC is keeping firearms away from nuts and criminals. People keep whining about "I'm not a criminal!" while failing to realize without BC's the only way to find out after the sale is to wait and see if Jared or Cho blows away innocent people.

I'm a little more interested in finding out beforehand.

 

[JamesB]

I think you're incorrect about this one, too. See Colorado Statutes/TITLE 18 CRIMINAL CODE/ARTICLE 12 OFFENSES RELATING TO FIREARMS AND WEAPONS/PART 1 FIREARMS AND WEAPONS - GENERAL/18-12-108. Possession of weapons by previous offenders. The Friends with a Felon thread contains a good discussion of this.

People v. Ford 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977)

The rest I may get back to you on...but not tonight.

 

[since9]

Interesting collection of cases, here.

People v. Ford 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977)

I hear you: Limitations of section 13, art. II, Colo. Const., superimposed on section. In spite of the flat prohibition contained in this section, the specific limitations of section 13 of art. II, Colo. Const. must be superimposed on the section's otherwise valid language. People v. Ford, 193 Colo. 459, 568 P.2d 26 (1977).

II.13: "All persons have certain natural, essential and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; and of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness."

So the question becomes, does People vs Ford completely invalidate 18-12-108's prohibition against convicted felons possessing a handgun? Or is People vs Ford an affirmative defense, so long as the firearm was only for self-defense and was not used to commit a crime? Also, the way I read 18-12-108 the prohibition expires 10 years after conviction or the most recent expiration of release from incarceration, probation, or supervision.

 

[JamesB]

The rest I may get back to you on...but not tonight.

Since9,
Sorry, I tried writing a response but it turned into a term paper so I deleted the whole thing. On detox, I think you are reading from an old copy. You remember what I remember, but I've had to look it up again recently. It's changed a little and been relocated.

18-12-202. Definitions.

(3) "Chronically and habitually uses alcoholic beverages to the extent that the applicant's normal faculties are impaired" means:

(a) The applicant has at any time been committed as an alcoholic pursuant to section 27-81-111 or 27-81-112, C.R.S.; (involuntary) or

(b) Within the ten-year period immediately preceding the date on which the permit application is submitted, the applicant:

(I) Has been committed as an alcoholic pursuant to section 27-81-109 or 27-81-110, C.R.S.; (voluntary)or

(II) Has had two or more alcohol-related convictions under section 42-4-1301 (1) or...

As to the rest: It may be pie in the sky, but would any other pie taste so sweet?

All of this is really off the topic of the legislation tho... would we like to start another thread on it?

 

[since9]

Michie is old?