ohh I see, this is only the first stage...
It passed the house. All the amendments were defeated except one - all that did was require a study to be done the first year the bill is in effect to determine how well police are able to figure out who has a valid license when they travel - or something like that....
Here are the Indiana votes:
NayIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
YeaIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
YeaIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
YeaIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
YeaIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
YeaIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
NayIN-7Carson, André [D]
YeaIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
YeaIN-9Young, Todd [R]
One error, according to GovTrak on the vote, the ONLY one to vote against it from Indiana was Petey V...
Indiana
NoIN-1Visclosky, Peter [D]
AyeIN-2Donnelly, Joe [D]
AyeIN-3Stutzman, Marlin [R]
AyeIN-4Rokita, Todd [R]
AyeIN-5Burton, Dan [R]
AyeIN-6Pence, Mike [R]
AyeIN-7Carson, André [D]
AyeIN-8Bucshon, Larry [R]
AyeIN-9Young, Todd [R]
When are the people of Lake County (which is the only reason he is still there, its not because of the rest of the district) Going to WISE UP and realize the guy is a career politician (over 25 + years) who is an example of what is the worst about a Washington Politician.... The only thing he is missing is a sex scandal, (but maybe he is just better at hiding it than the others)....
Pathetic... Pete the Uber-Liberal.... He should be representing Chicago, not Indiana....
Just my opinion...
Thank you for sharing with me your support for H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.
Congress has passed similar reciprocity provision for law enforcement officers. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 was passed into law and signed by President Bush in 2004. This measure exempts qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. I was a co-sponsor of this legislation.
H.R. 822 was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 18, 2011, and forwarded to the House Judiciary Committee where it is awaiting further consideration. I will closely follow the Committee's review of this proposal with your support in mind.
I believe in the rights of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms for collecting, defensive, and sporting purposes, and I support Indiana law related to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms. Thank you, again, for contacting me.
Dear Sen. Lugar,
The US House today passed HR 822 with an overwhelming majority. As per your recent letter affirming your support of current Indiana law regarding the purchase, ownership, and (specifically) carry of firearms, I would expect that you would vote to enact similar laws at the national level, requiring states to respect the Constitutional provisions.
I look forward to your support of this bill.
Thank you,
Curios as to the can of worms this will open if passed. Gosh, I'd hate to have some not up to Indiana's standards, out of state licensed barber cut my hair.
Emails sent to Rep. Rokita thanking him for his support of the bill and to Senators Coats and Lugar asking for the same.
Do note that Mr. Lugar's recent email to me after a similar request read:
In light of this, my letter of today read:
I actually expect that he will prove himself once again to be a bald-faced liar, but I recognize as well that on rare occasions, even a blind squirrel can find a nut. I'm just not sure if Lugar is the squirrel.... or the nut.
Blessings,
Bill
I see some people think this is great, other things its bad. I get emails from pro-gun places that think its bad, while the NRA says its great.
I dont know what to think, so what do you guys think about it?
There are no national standards for getting married, but under the full faith and credit clause, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage (well...). The same with drivers' licenses (although watch out for interstate databases). So why not licenses to carry? Like marriage a right (unlike driving which many states construe to be a privilege).Two thoughts:
If concealed carry is a right, we don't need a law, we need a court ruling. This may be the way to get one.
If we want to argue against federal restrictions, it's hard to support a law that overrules state law. If they can say everyone can carry, can't they also revoke everyone's right to carry, overruling the states that want it? Can they later tack on a training requirement? A fee and a license administred by the ATF?
I know none of that is in this law, but does this open the door for some nasty stuff down the road?
Just thinkin' out loud.
There are no national standards for getting married, but under the full faith and credit clause, a marriage is a marriage is a marriage (well...). The same with drivers' licenses (although watch out for interstate databases). So why not licenses to carry? Like marriage a right (unlike driving which many states construe to be a privilege).
Why does the full faith and credit clause give weight to "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of all states, but not fundamental rights under state and the federal constitutions.
That is, why do we need a federal law for firearms, but not marriages?
Understood. Put another way, if you (we) must have licensing, full faith and credit shall be given (sort of).... They're doing the Congressional thing, which is to say, they're half-assing it. They are not telling IL that they must offer a CC license/permit/whatever. They're still requiring a permission slip and not respecting the rights that VT always has and that AK, AZ, and WY now honor. They're doing it the way they do everything else-via the Commerce clause, but with all of those detriments, the distilled version is, "You will honor the acts of other states."
I would be in agreement with the vocal majority here if they were passing a new law that ordered compliance by all states with something unaddressed in the Constitution, such as the Obamacare fiasco of several months ago. Holding the states' feet to the fire, however, seems to me to be a positive thing. I'm aware of the slippery slope. This particular one, however, I think moves in our direction. "Obey the Constitution as you agreed to do."
That precedent being the codification of statutes mandating the application for and proof of possession of a license or permit as a prerequisite for the exercise of a fundamental right specifically enumerated in the Constitution for the United States and nearly all state constitutions.Temporary personal benefit prolongs and entrenches the bad precedent which should have been addressed instead.