Brady Bunch: Vote "NO" on the Dangerous "Packing Heat on Your Street" Bill

[LAGC]

Dear Friend,

As early as next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on dangerous gun lobby legislation, H.R. 822, which would force your state to allow dangerous and violent individuals from out-of-state to carry loaded guns in your community.

E-mail your U.S. Representative today!

"Vote 'NO' on H.R. 822. Stop dangerous people from packing heat on my street."

If the Washington gun lobby and their allies in Congress get their way, your state will no longer be able to make its own decisions about who can carry a hidden, loaded gun.

Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, or people with absolutely no training, could be granted a concealed gun permit in another state, and your state would have to honor it — no matter what.

http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/MessageViewer/?em_id=45461.0&dlv_id=54721&pgwrap=n

More GOP bullshit from the Republican Brady Bunch.

Urge your congressfolks to just vote YES on National CCW Reciprocity! It should be a Federally protected right!

:bounce:

[Philosopher King]

1. This will be slam dunk in the House, but I'm not so sure about the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.00822:

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. The Boston Globe just did an editorial on this subject.

[iverglas]

7. and here it is

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2011/10/27/guns-this-isn-salt-lake-city/GVjUWd1Zvjlbm5g7XUY4AJ/story.html

Guns: This isn’t Salt Lake City

October 28, 2011

Massachusetts should be able to decide for itself who can carry concealed handguns within its borders. However, that may not be the case for much longer. The House of Representatives is on the verge of passing a bill that would make permits for concealed guns reciprocal between states. That would mean that a permit from Utah, a state with notably lax standards for concealed-carry permits, as well as permits from every other gun-toting state, would be valid in Massachusetts. Under the latest version of the bill, people with out-of-state permits would be allowed to carry guns on Massachusetts streets even if state laws would otherwise make it illegal for them even to possess a firearm.

Statistics released last week showed Massachusetts had the second-lowest rate of firearm deaths in the nation, a strong endorsement of its gun-control policies. Utah has every right to pass its own, less stringent requirements. But rules crafted there shouldn’t apply here. This legislation does not affect a person’s right to own a gun for self-defense in their home. It just means more guns on the street. If this bill is brought up in the Senate, John Kerry and Scott Brown — and every other right-thinking senator — should vote against it.

A Republican mouthpiece, the Boston Globe?

:eyes:

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. Thank you.

I knew someone would find it.

[-..__...]

25. Conversley...

Utah is under no obligation to honor, recognize or bestow full rights to same couple marriages performed in Massachusetts.

Funny about that "states rights" thingy... all is fine and well unless the shoe is on the other foot.

I'd love to read the Globes editorial staff response to that one.

[iverglas]

30. yes, isn't it fascinating

how it's the right wing denying effect to same-sex marriages, and the right wing demanding that effect be given to concealed carry permits?

Always such a coincidence.

I was reading this just now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_Faith_and_Credit_Clause

Application to family law

... According to Andrew Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University and the author of The Gay Rights Question in Contemporary American Law, "No state has ever been required by the full faith and credit clause to recognize any marriage they didn't want to."<17> This issue first arose with regard to interracial marriage. Until the Supreme Court struck down all laws banning interracial marriage in 1967, a number of states banned interracial marriage and did not accept interracial marriage licenses issued in other states.<17> Thus, states were required to recognize an interracial marriage pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause and not pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

There has been much speculation on the clause's possible application to same-sex marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws and cases, as well as the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. Between 1996 and 2004, 39 states passed their own laws and constitutional amendments, sometimes called "mini DOMAs," which define marriage as consisting solely of opposite-sex couples. Most of these "mini DOMAs" explicitly prohibit the state from honoring same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. Conversely, several states have legalized same-sex marriage, either by legislation or by state supreme court judgment.

I've always said Equal Protection is what that is all about, and sadly, toting guns just doesn't come under that.

[krispos42]

36. It's an asshole bill aimed at asshole states.

Massachusetts, of course, won't recognize any other state's concealed-carry permits, regardless of standards required to get one.

The following 10 states (and Washington DC*) don't honor any other state's permits:

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois*
Maryland
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York (including NYC)
Oregon
Rhode Island

*does not issue permits

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/USReciprocity.pdf



If they weren't being assholes, this legislation wouldn't even be on the table.

If they want this legislation to die, they'd better get together real quick and agree to reciprocity with other states that have the same standards.

[gejohnston]

37. check out the latest update dated

today:

CaliforniaAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WI
Connecticut AK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WI
HawaiiAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MO, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WI,
MarylandAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WI,
MassachusettsAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*,
New JerseyAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*
New York (including NYC)AK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT*, WI
Oregon AK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OK, SD, TN, UT, VT
Rhode IslandAK*, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, NE, NV, OK, SD, TN, TX***, UT, VT*
USVI and Puerto Rico each accept IA, IN, MO, WI,

[krispos42]

38. Try page two

You're on page one, which has what states will recognize a state's permit.

"States That Honor the Listed State at Left Permit/License"

This means that AK, AZ, IA, ID, IN, KY, MI, MO, MT, NE, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, and WI will recognize California permits. This is on page one.

However, on page two:

"Permits/Licenses That the State Listed at Left Honors"

California | Does not honor any other state permits.

This is on page 2.

:hi:

[gejohnston]

39. my bad, ADD kicking in again nt

[krispos42]

40. The headers aren't the clearest in the world.

No problem. :-)

[iverglas]

3. so confusing

More GOP bullshit from the Republican Brady Bunch

Who is pushing the bullshit law in question?

[gejohnston]

9. The NRA or SAF, so they say, is pushing it

the Brady Bunch is putting out the fear mongering (and untrue) bullshit.
The political parties really don't count.

[iverglas]

10. does the NRA or the SAF introduce bills in Congress?

Wait, that was a trick question; sorry.

[gejohnston]

15. who introduced it

and how many sponsors does it have of each party? One of the latest attempt at the ABW was introduced and sponsored by a couple of Republicans.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6257

[iverglas]

19. well that was easy

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-822

Sponsor: Rep. Clifford Stearns

It has 245 co-sponsors so I'll let you look at them for yourself. Yup, a good sprinkling of Democrats.

You have never, ever, ever heard me say Democratic=good, Republican=bad. I'm perfectly aware that there are nuances on each side. There are utter scumball Democrats, and reasonable Republicans. Kind of like the Liberal Party in Canada in the past, which straddles the same lines here; Paul Martin was a corrupt corporatist, Warren Allmand was an admirable "liberal".

But what we have in this thread is an allegation that the Brady Centre's objections to the bill are "GOP".

And that is the most profound and utter and not remotely honest bullshit.

[-..__...]

29. This may (or may not), come as a surprise to you...

who would'a thunk it?... :shrug:

But Scott Brown... yes that Scott Brown is against the legislation...

Scott Brown Comes Out Against NRA-Backed Legislation

"As you know, I support the individual right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution," Brown wrote. "I also believe that individual states should be allowed to decide what constitutes safe and responsible gun ownership so long as it does not violate that basic constitutional right."

"Under the proposed House legislation, a national concealed carry reciprocity amendment would obligate states like Massachusetts to recognize that concealed carry permits of other states, even if the bearer of that permit does not meet the requirements established by Massachusetts to receive such a concealed carry permit. I believe that the people of Massachusetts are best positioned to decide what is best for Massachusetts. Therefore, if H.R. 822 or similar legislation comes before the Senate, I will vote no."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/07/scott-brown-nra-national-rifle-association_n_1080707.html

[iverglas]

34. nope, not surprised

I have no doubt that a Massachusetts Republican could

- be well to the left of, oh, a Dixiecrat

and/or

- know which side his electoral bread is buttered on

In this case, I'd say it's mainly the latter, from what little I've looked at of his politics, which seem generally pretty solidly right-wing socially and economically.

http://www.issues2000.org/Domestic/Scott_Brown_Gun_Control.htm

Rep. Brown indicated he supports the following principles concerning gun issues:
Allow citizens to carry concealed guns.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks on guns.
Require background checks on gun sales between private citizens at gun shows.
Require a license for gun possession.
Source: 2002 MA Gubernatorial National Political Awareness Test , Nov 1, 2002

You won't find Michael Castle supporting it either, just for example.

[rl6214]

42. But according to some posters here

It IS the NRA pushng all of these bills through the house and senate.

[iverglas]

46. what's the "but"?

The NRA is pushing senators and representatives to introduce and then pass the bill.

The NRA does not introduce bills in Congress or set the legislative agenda for dealing with bills.

[iverglas]

12. and the answer is ...

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201109120002

GOP Pushing "Dangerous" Concealed-Carry Reciprocity Bill

September 12, 2011 9:42 am ET

On Tuesday, a House Judiciary subcommittee will hold a hearing on H.R. 882, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act. Heavily backed by the National Rifle Association, the legislation has received overwhelming GOP support. While supporters claim the bill "protects the rights of each state," it would actually force states that have enacted rigorous concealed-carry restrictions to recognize permits from more lenient states, including states where investigations have exposed massive flaws in permitting procedures. This would "gut state laws from the back end," according to a former Republican member of Congress. Contrary to claims from the bill's advocates, experts have found no correlation between concealed-carry and lower crime rates, and in some cases evidence of higher rates. This evidence has led numerous law enforcement organizations to oppose the bill, calling it "dangerous" for police officers.

GOP, GOP, GOP, gosh.

[gejohnston]

16. so what?

and Media Matters does not have a good track record on this subject. They were part of the "Al Qaida says you can buy a machine gun no questions asked at a gun show" choir.

[iverglas]

20. oh my good fucking goodness

There are a lot of people here who will be jumping on you for trying to discredit the source of something whose facts you can't disprove.

Any minute now ... here they come ...

"so what?"

For the love of fuck, read the opening post.

The effort to stop this GOP DRIVEN bill really is just not a GOP DRIVEN effort.

Really.

Utter, complete, not remotely honest BULLSHIT.

[gejohnston]

23. no, I

fail to see the relevance. And these people are.......... faux intellectuals that can't answer direct questions, but love personal attacks; several that don't do much beyond one line? I read the opening post. Is it driven by the Republican party? Or just some Republicans with Democratic co-sponsors?

[iverglas]

27. lord jeezus

The opening post alleges that THE BRADY CENTRE'S OPPOSITION TO THE BILL is GOP-driven.

That is FALSE. It is a false statement.

The FACT is, however, just as an interesting counterpart to the FALSE statement in the opening post, that the BILL IS GOP-driven.

Is it the Republican Party and not just a bunch of Republican senators?

Sorry, but that one is a distinction without a difference. Republican members of Congress are what they are: Republican Party members of Congress. I realize you don't have party discipline, but the fact that they ARE the Republican Party in Congress is pretty undeniable.


http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/10/concealed-carry-bill-passes-house-committee/

In the latest skirmish over guns, House Republicans on Tuesday advanced a bill that would expand the rights of concealed firearms permit-holders, allowing them to carry hidden weapons in any state that issues permits.

The GOP-dominated House Judiciary Committee approved the bill–the Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act–by a 19-11 vote mostly along party lines after debate earlier this month that highlighted the partisan divide between advocates of allowing states to craft their own limitations on guns and those putting Second Amendment rights above state autonomy.

... Even if the bill passes the Republican-controlled House, it would meet stiff resistance in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

GOP. Republican.

If the Republicans had not introduced the bill, IT WOULD NOT EXIST.

[ileus]

24. edit wrong spot.

[gejohnston]

4. in terms of fear mongering nonsense

Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers, people with violent arrest records, or people with absolutely no training, could be granted a concealed gun permit in another state, and your state would have to honor it — no matter what.

Do these guys and the NRA go to the same fear mongering seminars?

[xchrom]

5. This seems more republican than not. Nt

[iverglas]

8. funny, isn't it, that?

In fact it (the attempt to force states to permit people to carry firearms within their jurisdiction without any oversight by the state in question) IS a Republican initiative.

Just like pretty much every other initiative that gets applauded in this forum.

Strange, eh?

:eyes:

[gejohnston]

13. So you are saying that if

if it were a Democratic initiative (based on the full faith and credit clause) you would instantly support it or what?

[iverglas]

17. if wishes were horses

then beggars would ride!

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RSillsbee]

22. If wishes were horses

People like you could continue to beat them loooooong after they were dead

[Simo 1939_1940]

43. Damn you, RSillsbee!

There went my beverage!!

:spray:

[RSillsbee]

45. My profound apologies

But it was worth it.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. "Blood will run in the streets". They just don't have anything else do they? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

14. "dangerous and violent individuals"

lawl

[iverglas]

21. yes, hahahaha

Keep in mind that what you think of the source here is of no never mind; are the facts false?

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201109120002

At least 31 states prohibit youths age 20 and under from obtaining a concealed carry permit, including one - Missouri - which sets a minimum age of 23.

At least 29 states prohibit alcohol abusers from obtaining a concealed carry permit, including South Carolina, which prevents "habitual drunkard(s)" from carrying guns.

At least 21 states grant law enforcement agencies discretion to deny carry permits to people who appear especially dangerous, including Alabama, which allows sheriffs to grant or deny licenses based on whether "it appears that the applicant . . . has any . . . proper reason for carrying a pistol, and he or she is a suitable person to be so licensed."

At least 35 states prohibit persons convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes from carrying concealed firearms, including Pennsylvania, which bars carrying by those who have been convicted of impersonating a law enforcement officer and other misdemeanor offenses. Research supports these restrictions. One study found handgun buyers who have been convicted of just one misdemeanor are almost five times as likely to be convicted of a serious violent crime as handgun buyers with no criminal record.

At least 30 states require the completion of a gun safety program or other proof of competency prior to the issuance of a permit, including Nevada, which requires a written exam and live fire training from three different positions with a certified instructor as components of their required gun safety course. (MAIG letter to Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 3/11/11)

So a state that set a minimum age of 20 and prohibited alcoholics convicted of personating a law enforcement officer would be compelled to allow an alcoholic 18-year-old with a conviction for personating a law enforcement officer (or hey, "misdemeanour" spousal assault, not a bar in some jurisdictions, I believe) to carry a firearm within its jurisdiction.

I know what I'd be saying if I lived in that state: Yaaaaay.


And then there are the states that just can't be trusted to apply their own standards, and the people who think their negligence should be inflicted on others:

Michigan: Permitting System "In Shambles," Criminal Convictions "Go Unreported." In June, Booth newspapers reported:

Ten years after Michigan made it easier to carry concealed guns, its mandatory process for reporting who has the permits — and who had them taken away — is a shambles.

Records are incomplete. Compliance by counties is spotty. Convictions for crimes go unreported.

It's against the law, but there is no penalty.

... The probe found the reports the state has released to the public every year for a decade fall far short of reality, especially on the number of convictions and license revocations. Among the reasons:

Gun boards in more than half the 83 counties broke the law by failing to file their annual reports at least once. One county, Shiawassee, has never complied.

(Better bookmark that one for the next time somebody starts bleating about how the gun toters are so much more law-abiding than everybody else and the numbers prove it, I guess.)

Let's hear it again from the cheap and unimportant seats where the people who elect their state lawmakers sit: Yaaaaay.

[gejohnston]

28. misdemeanor spousal assault

is a federal bar from mere possession. So is being an 18 year old alcoholic.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Not good enough! We must strip them of the permit too!

Otherwise, they could give someone a nasty papercut.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Nice try.

No cigar.

""misdemeanour" spousal assault, not a bar in some jurisdictions"
Maybe not in Canada. In the ENTIRE United States, it is illegal for such a cretin to possess a firearm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_Violence_Offender_Gun_Ban
It amounts to a felony conviction and strips the offender of ALL rights to a firearm, handgun, long gun or otherwise. (In a couple states, Cannon are legal)

"At least 31 states prohibit youths age 20 and under from obtaining a concealed carry permit, including one - Missouri - which sets a minimum age of 23."

23 is horseshit and should be immediately overruled. In fact, I would argue 18 (age of majority) is just fine by me. Same for the drinking age. Old enough to live on your own, old enough to enter into contracts, old enough to fight and die for your country, old enough to vote: good to go.

Nevada's training requirements can take a long walk off a short pier. Full Faith And Credit. (Not a concept we share with our northern neighbors? One wonders)

Tell me, is your drivers license good in all provinces up there? Is the licensing process EXACTLY the same across all provinces?

[Union Scribe]

41. Yep. So over the top all one can do is laugh.

I guess in the Brady universe the more background checks you pass the more dangerous you somehow become.

[ileus]

26. Sure would be nice if this passes, but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[krispos42]

31. Well, the left finally has a bumper-sticker saying

unfortunately, it's about as honest as the other ones fastened to the ass ends of automobiles.

I'm beginning to think that only authoritarian viewpoints fit on bumper stickers.

[Simo 1939_1940]

44. "I'm beginning to think that only authoritarian viewpoints

fit on bumper stickers."

On the right side of my bumper resides a decidedly liberal "Intolerance will not be tolerated" sticker right beside my California Rifle and Pistol Association decal. Positioned together intentionally to confront the bigotry of both the right & the left.

[iverglas]

47. "brawk brawk brawk"

Some people just don't care whom they exploit and abuse in their cause. Wailing and whining about being victims of "bigotry" because somebody is standing in the way of you getting your own way is just so unseemly, you know, that you just don't do your cause any good at all. Just a little word of advice there.

I know when I drive down the highway looking at those speed limit signs and wishing I was allwoed to drive faster, I think to myself, "fucking bigots, telling me what I can and can't do" ...

But then I realize what a childish moron I'd sound like if I said it out loud and somebody heard me.


"The bigotry of the left".

Oh well. In your haste to type ignorant noise, you seem to have admitted that firearms control is a "left" stance.

Good on ya. Keep working on it and the cognitive dissonance this must obviously cause you ... I mean, I assume it must cause you ... may resolve itself by your abandoning the right-wing stance and feeling much better for it.

[Euromutt]

32. "Domestic abusers, drug addicts, stalkers..." So, people prohibited from possessing firearms?

Federal law and the laws of many (possibly all, for all I know) states prohibit the aforementioned people from possessing firearms, and by extension, they can't carry concealed. "People with violent arrest records" are a different matter, of course, because an arrest does not equal a conviction, and as long as we pay lip service to presumption of innocence and due process in this country, merely being arrested for something is not evidence of wrongdoing.

So what I'm wondering is, are the folks at the Brady Bunch willfully pig-ignorant, or are they fucking liars? Not that it really matters, since there's no excuse for either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Faith-promoting rumor. The NRA also indulges in it on occasion

The origin of the term derives from the LDS Church (AKA, the Mormons). Back before DNA testing, some of their missionaries liked
to tell prospective Native American or Pacific Islander converts that they (the prospects) were descended from the lost tribes
of Israel. While never official church doctrine, it was tolerated and referred to as "faith-promoting rumor".

Needless to say, the LDS don't talk about it very much these days- but the technique lives on elsewhere, as you've pointed out.
The NRA likes to froth about President Obama in much the same way.