To Be or Not to Be?

John Richardson says HR 822 looks like "a pretty good bill."

Dan Gifford forwarded an email that says not so fast:
If You Want to Follow my Lead…: A few list members shared with me their comments to congressmen and the NRA-ILA regarding HR 822. These are the comments I sent to my representative, Paul Gosar, by means of GOA’s contact option at http://capwiz.com/gunowners/dbq/officials/:
I am a dedicated and long-term activist for the restoration of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Still, I must ask that you vote "no" on HR 822, the Stearns-Shuler bill to mandate nationwide recognition of state carry permits. Laudable as the goal sounds, the concept is a Trojan horse.


Sen. Feinstein has already announced her intent to establish federal standards for the issuance of concealed-carry permits at state level, to include a California-style requirement for proof of need. Costly medical and psychological testing, along with police-level "qualification" courses could also be included.


While none of this is in the current bill, making the carry of firearms a federal matter creates a ready vehicle for amendment when the political pendulum swings back to the left. The nation's experience with the 55 mph speed limit showed how easily the federal government can obtain compliance with federal standards simply by threatening to withhold federal funds.
I suppose now advocates for both viewpoints are going to hash this out on blogs and in forums...

Me, I've always been kinda partial to Constitutional carry...

Grab The Post URL

URL:
HTML link code:
BB (forum) link code:

Leave a comment

  • Google+
  • 0Blogger
  • Facebook
  • Disqus

0 Response to "To Be or Not to Be?"

Post a Comment

comments powered by Disqus