H.R. 822: National Right To Carry...

Recently, the House passed H.R. 822. which is a national right to carry piece of legislation. While I believe that this Bill is Constitutional because it just enables one to exercise their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves almost anywhere they are, I do get some heart burn over this Bill messing with individual States rights.

What are your thoughts?

Source

 

I don't believe that this law interferes with States' rights.

The Supreme Court echoes this sentiment as well (From H.R. 822: "The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense. The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States").

 

True, however CCW wasn't covered by either case.

 

I, personally, think that this law should be unnecessary. A concealed weapons permit from one state should apply to all based on Article IV of the Constitution.

Article IV

Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Section 2.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

This is true. The States that restrict the carriage of guns to protect oneself are infringing upon our Constitutional rights, IMHO, and many others.

 

Agreed. I will be following this closely to see if it passes the Senate. Given it's overwhelming support (which was actually bipartisan) in the House, I am actually optimistic that, even in the Democratic-controlled Senate, this bill has a chance of being passed.

 

And signed into law by President Obama? I don't agree with your optimism, but I could be wrong.

I do find it ironic and somewhat disturbing, however, when our country is in such dire need of effective legislation to address our economy and debt, that the Republicans have found this particular legislation necessary. I guess we know what their priorities are by now, and our collective best interests don't seem to be very high on that list.

 

I will know that its gettin ready to go down (Reset) when the White House unilatterally suspends CCW rights & prividledges on a National Level.

 

Obama's likely not going to be president in 14 months, so if the Senate does indeed pass this bill, then it may be signed into law by the Republican president who gets elected in 2012.

So, first of all, you seem to be blaming this DEBT on the Republicans?! You've gotta be joking about that one. Second of all, must all other issues stop when there are problems with the economy? Obama was able waste a year of his presidency on passing his healthcare nightmare (which made the debt problem WORSE), and that's okay according to you, but when a biparistan Congress spends less than a day regarding issues regarding the 2nd Amendment, suddenly it's the Republicans (again) that have lost focus. Your partisanship knows no bounds. Try seeing things with an open mind.

The Republicans aren't in control: The democrats had the White House, Senate and HOR for 2 whole years and only made matters drastically worse regarding our debt and the economic. The democrats still have control of the Senate and White House, and somehow its the republicans' fault that we're still in a mess?! Tell me how that is fair?

Just because the economy is in the toilet and our debt is out of control does not mean that all other issues are insignficant: We still have troops dying overseas, Iran is still trying to produce nukes, our borders are still not secure, etc. Obama and the Dems have focused on many of these others issues (and spent MUCH more time doing so) than the Republicans have on HR 822, so let's at least try to put things into perspective and be fair.

 

Not to mention Obama's obsession with the phantom green job industry that is derailing our current energy industry, and his continuing fights with States that are just trying to protect their economies and citizens.

 

Although I'm sure a good case could be made for showing the significant role the Republican party played in our current situation, it really doesn't take any extraordinary reading skills to see that I did NOT claim what your straw man claims I said. If you look again at what I said, you'll see that I put no blame on anyone for our national debt because it was not the point of my post. I suggest you slow down and read for better comprehension.

Certainly not, but if you were truly looking for perspective, you'd note that Congress was unable to agree on a budget that would address our deficit, choosing instead to empower a so-called "super" committee that also failed. This just happened NOW and what was the very first thing the Republicans do? They pass a silly gun bill. If perspective is important, then timing is equally important to that perspective.

Wrong. Get your facts straight. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office states that repealing the health care law would worsen the federal deficit over the next 10 years — by $230 billion.

 

Perhaps it is because the realise the crushing reality that nothing can be done. There is no debt crisis...a crisis implies that there is a way out. We are bankrupt...game over...do not pass go...do not collect $200.

Shall we examine the CBO's track record for accuracy? I will give you a hint...it is not at all good.

 

Pity, but your dire view is not shared by economists and bond rating agencies. Your 'Chicken Little' hysteria is not persuasive.

Poison the well fallacy, eh? They are the best equipped to make these predictions and are typically the most reliable.

 

States do not actually have a right to restrict gun ownership, according to an open interpretation of the second amendment (in light of the 14th amendment).

 

Economists also did not see the housing bubble coming. Your blind faith in your government overlords is quite telling.

How is it a fallacy when their track record of inaccuracy is published for all to see. I am merely pointing out what is there for all to see. Again, your statism betray's you.

 

That's why groups like the NRA and GOA are fighting to secure gun rights for all. Illinois is the only State that does not allow any form of carry.

 

No, of course you didn't blame anyone. You stated, in your prior post, "I do find it ironic and somewhat disturbing, however, when our country is in such dire need of effective legislation to address our economy and debt, that the Republicans have found this particular legislation necessary." Thus, you CLEARLY believe that the Republicans are more deserving of blame than the Democrats (since you single out the Republicans).

You're right about one thing: It's really didn't take any extraordinary reading skills to understand your consistent bias.

The "super committee" was Obama's brilliant idea. The failure to compromise can be placed entirely on the Democratic Party, since the Republicans on the super committee did agree to tax increases.

This was addressed in my prior post. Congress is able to deal with more than one issue as at time.

Perhaps you should get YOUR facts straight. The CBO calculations were based on $500 billion in Medicare cuts (that the Democrats wouldn't sign for in a million years) along with other falsehoods. That's why in early 2011, the CBO recalculated the costs of Obamacare, and found that it would cost $1.42 trillion from 2012-2021 http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/CBO on HR2.pdf

 

Economist actually did see it coming.

Are you an economist?

 

There was actually quite a bit of gun control that was left constitutional by DC vs. Heller. States can restrict guns to the confines of DC vs. Heller.

 

Many did, actually, but that isn't the point is it? The fact that economists are sometimes wrong does NOT mean that your prediction of imminent bankruptcy is somehow correct. This is a flawed logic on your part.

You mean; my faith in economists and bond rating agencies. These are typically private, not public enterprises.

Do you have anything besides irrelevant diversions and insults? Apply yourself.

By your logic, then meteorologists are no more effective at weather forecasting than my bum knee because they aren't correct all the time. The fact of the matter is, if you have better and more esteemed analysis as to the effect of the Affordable Health Care Act on our deficit then post it. Until then the CBO is the best we have.

 

Rubbish.

Your knee-jerk responses are becoming predictable. If you simply slow yourself down a moment and consider what you originally charged me with, and consider what I actually wrote, you will see your error. I see that you have now changed your argument to a more general "blame" instead of your original charge that I was "blaming this DEBT on the Republicans", which I clearly was NOT doing. Simple, right?

The ONLY thing I blamed the Republicans for in my prior post was in not working on our deficit in favor of this silly gun Bill. How can you not see this?

I'm sure your apology will be forthcoming because you are an honorable person, right?

It was??? Really?

I see. You asked for perspective and then you chose to disregard it. Interesting approach.

Do you mean $398 billion?

Suppositions and smears. Not very compelling.

More rubbish. Your source clearly says:

"CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period"
​

I assume that you DO realize that HR 2 is the Boehner Bill intended to rescind the PPACA? The Boehner Bill would INCREASE the National Debt, not reduce it, friend.

 

Many did not, the economic profession as a whole did not. The fact that you can find a few outliers is insignificant.

Yes, your faith in people who's lives depend upon the health of the financial sector is troubling.

They don't need to be correct ALL of the time, just most of the time...which the CBO is not.

The CBO is just a bunch of people crunching numbers...anyone with a calculator and enough time can produce the analysis they have. They are guessing at many things without having all of the variables in place yet...its rather silly to take anything they say seriously.

 

Stop making excuses for yourself: It's obvious to every reader that you singled Republicans out, and you do indeed fault the Republicans for failure of a debt resolution, even though the Democrats control the White House and Senate.

What should I be apologizing for again?

Yes. The Super Committee was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was signed into law by..................BARACK OBAMA. You should at least give credit where credit is due.

Yes. I asked for perspective, not blatant bias without substance. You state that "timing is important," but what does this even mean in this sense? The Democrats failed to compromise and the Super Committee failed. So what? Should every single Republican stop working on their individual projects because of the Democrats couldn't compromise? Do you think that Cliff Sterns (Republican) and Heath Shuler (Democrat), who authored the bill and introduced it on Feburary 18, 2011, were distracted from solving the debt crisis because of this bill that they wrote 9 months ago? Explain the logic in that.

No, I meant the $500 billion (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-12/...ers-medicare-advantage-program?_s=PM:POLITICS): According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which reviewed the Senate version of the health-care law that eventually passed in 2010, the law will wring $492 billion from the projected future costs of Medicare and Medicaid over 10 years.

No: It's logic and common sense. If you believe the Democrats will vote to approve nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts for seniors, then you must be smoking crack. It would be political suicide.

Let's go over this again. Table 1 clearly states that, between 2012 and 2021, there will be a reduction of 1.42 trillion dollars from the deficit by passing Boehner's Bill, due to insurance coverage provision cuts. In summary of this aspect of Table 1, the article states, "By repealing those coverage provisions of PPACA and the Reconciliation Act, over the 2012-2021 period H.R. 2 would yield gross savings of $1,390 billion and net savings (after accounting for the offsets just mentioned) of $1,042 billion."

What you referred to above includes the added TAXES that come along with the Obamacare bill: "The enacted legislation will increase federal revenues (apart from the effect of provisions related to insurance coverage), mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers. Repealing those provisions would reduce revenues by an estimated $520 billion over the 2012-2021 period." You also included "Effects on the Deficit of Changes in Outlays," which is essentially the part of Obamacare that deals with Medicare and Medicaid and curtailment of payment to hospitals and doctors: Effects on Spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Programs Many of the other provisions that would be repealed by enacting H.R. 2 affect spending under Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs. PPACA and the Reconciliation Act made numerous changes to payment rates and payment rules in those programs, established a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance through the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) provisions, and made certain other changes to federal health programs. In total, CBO estimates that repealing those provisions would increase net federal spending by $732 billion over the 2012–2021 period

Like the $500 billion in "future" Medicare cuts that was included into the "savings," the $520 billion in tax hikes and the $732 billion in fee cuts are not feasible: The tax hikes would decimate this weak economy (and thus I doubt that even a Democratic Presidency would continue them for 10 years), and the $732 billion in cuts would literally shut down hospitals and force doctors out of work.

 

Many did, actually, but that isn't the point is it? The fact that economists are sometimes wrong does NOT mean that your prediction of imminent bankruptcy is somehow correct. This is a flawed logic on your part.

Interesting bit of paranoid thinking, friend. As I recall you boldly claimed that we are a bankrupt country, even though your claim is not shared by anyone I know, including politicians, private economists and journalists. This is exclusively your own position and you have defended it by attacking me and others. Good work.

False conclusion.

Just as I thought. You have nothing but smears. Sad really.

I asked you for a better alternative than the CBO for determining the effect on the Deficit by the Affordable Care Act. You chose instead baseless smears. Sadly predictable.

 

Stop the deception, friend. It really is unflattering on you.

You claimed that I was "blaming this DEBT on the Republicans". You know this is untrue and yet you persist with this by now moving the goalposts. Poor form,'drj'.

Pay attention. You falsely claimed I said something I clearly did not say. Most honorable people apologize for an error such as this. How about you?

Oh, 'drj'. Shame on you. Why resort to deception now? Aim higher friend, you can do it.

You first claimed that "The "super committee" was Obama's brilliant idea."
Now when pressed, you again claim that it was his idea, but you contradict that assertion by stating that he only SIGNED the legislation.

Tsk, tsk,... you've been caught again. That wouldn't happen if you were more honest in the first place, I suppose.

For you to blame the Democrats for the impasse only shows your naivete in how negotiations such as these work. That coupled with the fact that anyone who knows anything about our debt problem, which includes former Republican Senators, Republican Presidential economic advisers, and former Republican Federal reserve Chairman, knows what needs to be done to address our problem. That our current Republican Congressmen have not embraced this is telling but not insurmountable. Continued work should be on the impasse, but instead we see silly gun Bills.

And that's a BAD thing? REALLY? I would think you'd be dancing in the streets, instead of pouting with unheralded and gloomy predictions.

I suppose there's no pleasing some people.

Yet another deception, friend. You really must address this problem or I'm afraid nobody here will take you seriously. There is NO "cuts for seniors" in this Legislation. You know this and chose to deceive anyways. Pity.

Sorry friend, but you can't take out pieces of the Affordable Care Act and make conclusions based on that. It is a sum of its parts and you still canot avoid the fact that the very same CBO that you quote from also, in the very same report, stated that the Bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act will INCREASE the deficit by a substantial amount.

You have made spurious conclusions as to this Law that simply are not true. You cannot prove that this law will "decimate this weak economy" as you said because it is total conjecture without merit on your part. You further erode your credibility by claiming that this law will "shut down hospitals and force doctors out of work".

Do you actually think about these things before you put pen to paper?