The U.S. House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on
Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security recently held a hearing on H.R. 822,
the “National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.”

This critically important bill, introduced earlier this
year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) and
cosponsored by more than 240 of their colleagues, would enable millions of
permit holders to exercise their right to self-defense while traveling
outside their home states.

There is currently only one remaining state (Illinois)
that has no clear legal way for individuals to carry concealed firearms for
self-defense. Forty states have permit systems that make it possible for any
law-abiding person to obtain a permit, while most of the others have discretionary
permit systems. (Vermont has never required a permit.)

H.R. 822 would mark a major step forward for gun owners’
rights by significantly expanding where those permits are recognized. Dozens
of states have passed Right-to-Carry laws over the past 25 years because the
right to self-defense does not end when one leaves home. However, interstate
recognition of those permits is not uniform and creates great confusion and
potential problems for travelers. While many states have broad reciprocity,
others have very restrictive reciprocity laws. Still others deny recognition

H.R. 822 would solve this problem by requiring that
lawfully issued carry permits be recognized, while protecting the ability of
the various states to determine the areas where carrying is prohibited within
their boundaries.

Unfortunately, but predictably, H.R. 822 continues to be
attacked in some quarters, namely the anti-gun media, like the New York Times
and the Washington Post; anti-gun organizations, like the Brady Campaign, and
New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns; and,
regrettably, even some so-called pro-gun organizations.

Opponents of the legislation claim that it tramples on
each “states’ rights.” But states don’t have rights, only powers.
And while many anti-gun lawmakers who’ve long pushed national gun bans,
national bans on private gun sales, national waiting periods and other
federal restrictions have suddenly become born-again advocates of
“states’ rights” to oppose this bill, several provisions of the
Constitution give Congress the authority to enact interstate carry. Congress
also has the power to protect the rights of citizens, nationwide, under the
14th Amendment (please see related article from last
week’s Grassroots Alert).

Next, despite what a handful of “pro-gun”
activists say, the bill would not create a federal licensing system, nor
would it establish a minimum federal standard for the carry permit.
it would require the states to recognize each others’ carry permits, just as
they recognize driver’s licenses and carry permits held by armored car
guards. Unfortunately, these self-proclaimed “gun rights”
supporters, who have no active lobbying presence in any legislature, have an
agenda that has very little to do with promoting the interests of gun owners.
Here are the FACTS about a few of their claims:

H.R. 822 would involve the federal bureaucracy in setting standards for carry
permits, resulting in “need” requirements, higher fees, waiting
periods, national gun owner registration, or worse.

H.R. 822 doesn’t require—or even authorize—any such action by any federal
agency. In fact, since it would amend the Gun Control Act, it would fall
under a limitation within that law that authorizes “only such rules and
regulations as are necessary to carry out” the GCA’s provisions. No
federal rules or regulations would be needed to implement H.R. 822, which
simply overrides certain state laws.

H.R. 822 would destroy permitless carry systems such as those in Arizona,
Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

H.R. 822 would have absolutely no effect on how the permitless carry states’
laws work within those states. For residents of Arizona, Alaska and Wyoming,
where permits are not required but remain available under state law, H.R. 822
would make those permits valid in all states that issue permits to their own
residents. Residents of Vermont, where no permits are issued or required,
could obtain nonresident permits from other states to enjoy the benefits of
H.R. 822.

Myth: If
H.R. 822 moved through the legislative process, it would be subject to
anti-gun amendments.

By this logic, neither NRA, nor any other pro-gun group, should ever promote
any pro-gun reform legislation. But inaction isn’t an option for those of us who
want to make positive changes for gun owners. Instead, we know that by
careful vote counting and strategic use of legislative procedure, anti-gun
amendments can be avoided or defeated.

H.R. 822 is a good bill
for gun owners. Don’t listen to false and misleading accusations. Please
contact your member of Congress and urge him or her to support the earliest
possible consideration of H.R. 822 this year. You can contact your
Representative by phone at (202) 225-3121.

From USCCA post


Barak backing Down?

September 22, 2011

Might Pull Out

As bad news piles up for the Democrats, I asked a top Democratic
strategist if it were possible that President Obama might pull a Lyndon Johnson
and soberly face the cameras, telling America that he has decided that the
demands of partisan politics are interfering with his efforts to right our
economy and that he has decided to withdraw to devote full time to our
recovery. His answer: Yes. Its possible. If things continue as they are and
have not turned around by January, it is certainly possible.”  GOP USA Mid-Day Report


September 14, 2011


Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already
said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment
gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to
complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only
take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro gun folks
you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This
upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court’s
accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to
bear arms.

Here’s what you need to do:

First – vote on this one.

Second – launch it to other folks and have THEM vote – then we will see if
the results get published.

The Question is:

“Does the Second Amendment give individuals the right to bear arms?”

Click on the link below and PLEASE vote Yes! <>
– Quick Question

Please keep this moving!

The Empty Lockbox!

September 12, 2011

millions of seniors then and now, [my] Grandma was convinced that her Social
Security benefits were an entitlement she had bought with her own payroll taxes
years earlier. She blessed FDR for creating the Social Security trust fund in
which she had faithfully invested for most of her working life, and couldn’t
understand why her grandson had any objection to it. In reality there is no
money in Social Security’s trust fund and never has been. It is merely an
accounting fiction, like the individual Social Security accounts to which
workers’ payroll taxes are credited. But Grandma could hardly be blamed for
believing otherwise. Right from the start, Social Security was promoted to
Americans as a straightforward pension fund. … It wasn’t true. In a [1937]
decision … upholding the Social Security Act, the Supreme Court confirmed
what anyone who read the law would already have discovered: Payroll taxes
weren’t held by the government solely for the benefit for retirees. On the
contrary: Social Security taxes ‘are to be paid into the Treasury like internal
revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way.’ Likewise, for all
the talk of Social Security as an ‘entitlement,’ retirees have no ironclad
right to that monthly check. ‘Congress can change the rules’ whenever it wants
to, the Social Security Administration’s website acknowledges. ‘Benefits which
are granted at one time can be withdrawn.’ That too was explicit in the law FDR
signed in 1935. … [T]he trust fund’s assets are an illusion. Social Security
doesn’t own $2.6 trillion in gold bars or real estate or shares of Google. All
it has are Treasury IOUs. Those IOUs represent $2.6 trillion that the
government has already spent and promises to spend again. But to spend it again
— to redeem those IOUs — Congress will have to raise taxes, cut spending, or
go deeper into debt. Which is exactly what Congress would have to do if the
Social Security trust fund didn’t exist. … FDR’s signature program is on a
collision course with itself. My grandmother, may she rest in peace, may have
believed it would last forever. My generation doesn’t have that luxury.”
–columnist Jeff Jacoby in the Patriot Post.

Hearing Scheduled for
H.R. 822,

the National
Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011

Click here to
vote in this week’s poll.

months we have been reporting on a critically important bill:  H.R.
822—the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011.  This vital
NRA-backed legislation, introduced earlier this year by Congressmen Cliff Stearns
(R-Fla.) and Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) will enable millions of permit holders to
exercise their right to self-defense while traveling outside their home

to much hard work and action taken by NRA and our members, H.R. 822 has now
garnered 242 cosponsors in the U.S. House.  On Tuesday, September 13, the
House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security will hold a hearing on the bill.

is currently only one state (Illinois) that has no clear legal way for
individuals to carry concealed firearms for self-defense.  Forty states
have permit systems that make it possible for any law-abiding person to obtain
a permit, while most of the others have discretionary permit systems. (Vermont
has never required a permit.)