Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Tea Party Gun Laws

  1. #1
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    391

    Tea Party Gun Laws

    Larry,

    Tea Partiers in Texas shouldn't make gun laws for the rest of us. Yet shockingly, that's what the hard Right wants to ram through Congress.

    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act (HR 822) would force states to recognize a "concealed carry" permit issued by any other state. That means that if one state's radical fringe decides anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon, your state will be powerless to do anything about it.

    Effectively undoing state gun laws is outrageous and unacceptable. That's why I need my closest allies to jump to action.

    Earlier this week, I sent a letter to governors across the country warning them about this appalling overreach by the Tea Party gun lobby. Stand with me and demand that governors speak out against this unprecedented attack on a state's ability to decide its own gun laws.

    Click here to stop this outrageous attack on common sense. The people ? not the radical gun lobby ? should decide their state's gun laws.

    Currently, every state can make its own decisions about whether and how to grant concealed weapons permits. They often have different requirements ? age minimums, firearms training, or lack of a criminal record ? decided through the democratic process in that state.

    This new bill would completely undo gun laws in your state. The federal government would effectively override the wishes of the state legislatures and Governors and remove their ability to set gun standards in their state.

    That's wrong.

    Moreover, states already have the ability to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states, if they so choose. Why should that choice be taken away from the people's representatives in each state?

    Fundamentally, this new proposed law is unnecessary, short-sighted, and outright dangerous. That's why I need your help to mobilize Governors right away.

    Click here to stop this outrageous attack on common sense. The people ? not the radical gun lobby ? should decide their state's gun laws.

    The Tea Party gun lobby thinks nobody in Washington is willing to stand up to them. Together we can show them how wrong they are. Take action right this minute.

    Thanks for all you do,

  2. #2
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    391
    this isn't my personal view, this was something I got from a group that there trying to get shut down.

    I think on something like this gun permit issue, it would be a good program. I think there not quite understanding the gun control policy. If Federal is passing the law, witch sets the minimum for the country to fallow, so the other states, if they do a gun policy, that they have to at least have the minimum. But , they can add stipulations or extra rules to that policy.

  3. #3
    Post Demon
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,496
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott250 View Post
    this isn't my personal view, this was something I got from a group that there trying to get shut down.

    I think on something like this gun permit issue, it would be a good program. I think there not quite understanding the gun control policy. If Federal is passing the law, witch sets the minimum for the country to fallow, so the other states, if they do a gun policy, that they have to at least have the minimum. But , they can add stipulations or extra rules to that policy.
    I'm not surprised.

    Here, Conservatives here have hammered us about a "Canadian" vision for a while which is mostly an excuse to have strongly centralized authority and take away regional powers.

    That way, things can be done the "Canadian" way, their way.

    Same kind of backward mentality were are witnessing here where the brain dead try to globalize their vision of how things should be.

    In their minds, God forbid that gun laws should be decentralized. It should be all the same everywhere and it should be their way.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott250 View Post
    Click here to stop this outrageous attack on common sense. The people ? not the radical gun lobby ? should decide their state's gun laws.
    Can't click, bad copy paste job?
    6 lines down:
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott250 View Post
    Click here to stop this outrageous attack on common sense. The people ? not the radical gun lobby ? should decide their state's gun laws.
    I'm clicking i'm clicking. Oh wud?

  5. #5
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,828
    As a peace officer there are states that have laws that block me from carrying my off duty weapon with me if im driving thru them.Which honestly is absurd.

    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS





  6. #6
    Post Fiend Rockie Cantais's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    265
    After reading all this I wonder how absurd things can get when we let our emotions run wild. First off has anyone read the bill which I will do later if need be. The Right to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise also comes with responsibility especially if you do it legally. How many carry them illegally? I never carried a weapon while off duty nor my badge, never felt the need. I still don't feel the need to as a civilian but I support those who do.

    Without reading the Bill I say the Feds need to stay out of it for its up to the individual States on how they want to handle conceal carry. If a State wants to or not, to recognize another States law on conceal carry so be it. WHY? is it a Tea Party Law, seriously? Doesn't sound like any Tea Party stuff that we would push. Might have to check it out later to be sure.

  7. #7
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    467
    As a Person who has had a friend shot by an off duty officer, who was also DRUNK, then had to sit and watch the guy walk scott free im all for not allowing off duty officers to carry thier weapons with them... for some reason they just think they can shoot people, independent of the circumstances and be in the right AND for some reason the local governments seem to back them up.

  8. #8
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,828
    The officer himself had a issue. It was drinking. That and guns do not mix as most officers know.Sounds sorta odd a Grand jury would no bill such a incident depending on where your even from, and what the other side of the issue turned out to be.As a officer its impossible to judge based on only hearing 1 side of what happened.Sorry for your friend being killed tho.
    And no off duty officers do not think they can just shoot people.They have the same responsibility as a on duty officer.If not more.Many lives and crimes have been saved and stopped due to a off duty officer being in a business that is being robbed because the criminals do not know they are there or armed.

    Also you fail to realize how many officers get their lives or their families threatened for doing their job the correct way .Some departments require off duty officers to carry their duty weapons concealed for those 2 reasons alone.Your basically suppose to always be prepared to be called to duty or protect the people you are sworn to serve.That is why where i work we are not even allowed into clubs that serve alcohol anywhere in this county.If found to be in 1 its grounds for termination.And has happened a few times.

    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS





  9. #9
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    467
    If an officer is required or feels the need to always be packing and as you say carrying a gun and drinking is a bad idea, then it would make sense that they should not be allowed to drink at all. the fact of the matter was that the cop did not identify himself before he "aggressively involved" himself in what he "thought was a domestic dispute" then shot my friend when he defended himself. the leagual battle was a much more involved story but the long and short of it was the case never was heard by a grand jury because the prosecutors office+chief of police did every thing they could to prevent that.

    Also you mention off duty officers saving lives by being in a market while it was being robed. what about the lives lost in that exact same scenario? typically people robbing a convenient store want to be in and out ASAP and as long as they get the money they don't physically harm anyone. However when an off duty officer comes jumping out of the pastry isle waving his pistol their is a much higher probability that the would be robber start shooting putting everyone in the store in danger.

  10. #10
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    467
    one other in my little part of America cops can be found in a variety of night clubs that are serving alcohol, in fact some clubs that are known to have fights break out frequently are forced to have an on duty officer present for Friday and Saturday nights.

  11. #11
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,828
    Working security and being in a bar drinking armed are to very different things.

    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS





  12. #12
    Forum Fanatic
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,828
    Not to argue with you as you seem alittle biased on this. but a meth head juiced up is more prone to shoot the clerk and any witnesses as he is to leave quietly.
    As to the case not going to a Grand Jury.Civil court is always open and not as hard to prove unless the evidence is different and already proven to be so.Not being there myself i would not know.

    Monsters

    Fighting the world back Proudly since Age 35

    #MONSTERS





  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    US and Netherlands
    Posts
    41
    @Scot250 I believe you are a little confused about HR 822.

    #1. The Tea Party does NOT have as part of their national platform, gun rights. Admittedly, MOST Tea Party members favor the 2nd amendment right, they ALL do not favor conceal/carry. (Scott Clement, Survey Research Analyst, and John C. Green, Senior Research Adviser, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life February 23, 2011)

    #2. HR 822: According to govtrack.us which is a Congressional Research Service Summary, 'The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress......... HR 822 is A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

    The legislation would still require permit-holders carrying concealed guns in another state to follow that state's laws, particularly restrictions on where guns can be carried - universities, for instance, or bars or government buildings. But the bill wouldn't require them to meet all of that state's application qualifications, such as a minimum age requirement.'

    I fight against this resolution for a different reason. Although the NRA (of which I've been a member for many, many years) supports a federal recognition, I don't as I, too, believe in States individual rights as granted in the 10th amendment of our Constitution.

    I worry, given the governments ability to attempt to control every aspect of our lives, if we're required to carry a federal permit... the Fed govt would eventually say the individual state's permits are no longer valid, only the fed id is legal... therefore, it would allow the fed govt to greatly restrict private gun ownership in America, by denying more permits than it allows... that indeed would be a sad day for Americans as according to the FBI ..." According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined." (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr....-2010/summary)

    I believe if you compare the FBI stats state by state (those who favor conceal/carry vs those who do not) you'll see dramatic drop off in violent crimes in those states in favor. I believe in 2010, more people applied and received conceal/carry permits, and bought guns than any other prior year. Responsible gun ownership by individuals have helped to curb these violent crimes, as you would not be as likely to break-in a business/home if you knew there is a good possibility the person behind the counter or door is legally armed....

  14. #14
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    391
    Quote Originally Posted by Spookylou View Post
    @Scot250 I believe you are a little confused about HR 822.

    #1. The Tea Party does NOT have as part of their national platform, gun rights. Admittedly, MOST Tea Party members favor the 2nd amendment right, they ALL do not favor conceal/carry. (Scott Clement, Survey Research Analyst, and John C. Green, Senior Research Adviser, Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life February 23, 2011)

    #2. HR 822: According to govtrack.us which is a Congressional Research Service Summary, 'The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress......... HR 822 is A bill to establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

    The legislation would still require permit-holders carrying concealed guns in another state to follow that state's laws, particularly restrictions on where guns can be carried - universities, for instance, or bars or government buildings. But the bill wouldn't require them to meet all of that state's application qualifications, such as a minimum age requirement.'

    I fight against this resolution for a different reason. Although the NRA (of which I've been a member for many, many years) supports a federal recognition, I don't as I, too, believe in States individual rights as granted in the 10th amendment of our Constitution.

    I worry, given the governments ability to attempt to control every aspect of our lives, if we're required to carry a federal permit... the Fed govt would eventually say the individual state's permits are no longer valid, only the fed id is legal... therefore, it would allow the fed govt to greatly restrict private gun ownership in America, by denying more permits than it allows... that indeed would be a sad day for Americans as according to the FBI ..." According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year. Property crimes also decreased, marking the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined." (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr....-2010/summary)

    I believe if you compare the FBI stats state by state (those who favor conceal/carry vs those who do not) you'll see dramatic drop off in violent crimes in those states in favor. I believe in 2010, more people applied and received conceal/carry permits, and bought guns than any other prior year. Responsible gun ownership by individuals have helped to curb these violent crimes, as you would not be as likely to break-in a business/home if you knew there is a good possibility the person behind the counter or door is legally armed....

    the way things work, is if the federal government setts the standard, then that is the minimum. If the state wants to add to that requirment, they have to have what the federal governement has, then the state would add to that. They can not be less. If they don't have the minimum, then yes,they would go by what the FG goes by.

  15. #15
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    391
    this is the actual summery from congress:

    CloseOfficial Summary
    2/18/2011--Introduced.National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to authorize a person who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid permit to carry a concealed firearm in one state, and who is not prohibited from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm under federal law, to carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) in another state in accordance with the restrictions of that state.


    I believe this bill is pretty much a done deal, there just waighting on Illinois

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •