NAGR’s Continuing Opposition to HR822

Trojan HorseHere’s some excerpts from Dudley Brown’s latest e-mail alert:

Subject: Anti-gun bill getting worse!

I can see suggesting letting the feds involve themselves in concealed carry is a bad idea, but let’s not get ridiculous here. Unfortunately, ridiculous is where this is headed:

As I type this, all-out war has been declared on your gun rights in Washington, D.C. by the House Judiciary Committee. Your National Association for Gun Rights has been warning you that H.R. 822 is a Trojan Horse.

Those bastards! Wanting to enforce the Second Amendment against the states using their 14th Amendment powers. If this is all out war, bring it on. I’m also incredulous at the implication this is a Trojan Horse. The fact that HR822 could, perhaps later, open the door to more serious federal involvement in an issue we might come to later to regret is arguable. But you can’t, out of one side of your mouth, argue that the people pushing HR822 are “well-meaning” and out of the other side suggest they are foisting a Trojan Horse on gun owners. Perhaps Brown is only guilty of using poor metaphors here, but Trojan Horse has implications as to the intentions of the people offering the gift.

Just today, Republicans helped pass an amendment that orders the Feds to investigate the “safety” of mail-in CCW permits from states like Florida, Utah and New Hampshire.

This is a common tactic to pick up more votes. Some softy gets an idea in his head that he’d like to have more information about something or another and you get things like this. I would also point out that our opponents have done quite a bit of this, where they commission studies that are sent to committees intended to reach a fore drawn conclusion. Turnabout is fair play, and that’s all I have to say about this particular amendment.

So-called “pro-gun” Republicans even KILLED an amendment that would have allowed permit holders to defend themselves in the District of Columbia, one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

A more aggressive bill was tried before and died in the Senate. We’re going to want something that can pass. Every time you tweak a bill, you’re either going to pick up or lose votes. Passing legislation is about holding on to a majority needed to get a bill passed, and that’s going to mean HR822 needs to be less aggressive than its predecessors. You can always go back later and tweak with a separate bill when everyone realizes the sky hasn’t fallen. This isn’t about the Republicans on the committee being anti-gun, it’s about keeping the bill in a form that’s more likely to see passage.

Brown continues on to speak of the many anti-gun amendments which were defeated in Committee markup, which was entirely predictable. He suggests that the Senate has a whole host of anti-gun Amendments they would like to tack on as well, so that’s where the bill is going to certainly become anti-gun. I think that’s unlikely, but it’s worth noting that the Senate can’t pass a bill unilaterally. If we can’t get a clean bill out of the Senate, the bill can die right there.

His letter ends with a plea to call judiciary members and get them to oppose HR822, which puts Dudley on the same side as groups such as MAIG, the Brady Campaign, CSGV, and the Violence Policy Center, as well as big city police chiefs, and your usual Joyce funded puppets.

As I said, I don’t bemoan anyone who’s nervous about or opposed to federal intervention in this area. Before Heller and McDonald, and before we had a court strategy, I agreed with those folks. But Brown is way out of line here with his rhetoric and tactics, which have gone way beyond the line of good faith disagreement. He has joined with our opponents in word and in deed.

13 thoughts on “NAGR’s Continuing Opposition to HR822”

  1. Isn’t this the one about CCW reciprosity? Forget about it. All you guys can eeck out are those little insignificant victories. This is too big.

    But you gotta ask yourselves, if you can’t push this through now, what’s your future look like?


    1. HR822 is a probing action. I’m not sure it could pass under the current climate because of who’s in the White House. Obama will likely veto the bill unless it’s attached to something else he needs to sign. But it is still a useful exercise to go through the motions. Once the climate is favorable, it can mean quicker passage.

    2. mikeb30200: Not as bleak as you would like to think. Even if this does not make out of the Senate via votes or Obumble does not sign it for whatever nonsensical reason he will surely come up with it. This proposed legislation is a perfect measuring stick for Reps and Senators that are coming up for a critical election in 2012.

      Watching who and how Reps/Senators are voting or not voting is key. These Reps/Senators know the NRA and others will be watching how they vote. If, and I would like nothing more, Obumble gets voted out in 2012 and the Senate has a good chance to have more pro-2ndA votes in it over the 2012 Elections…

      So, I would not count my chicks before they are hatched on this piece of legislation/idea…

  2. While the doom and gloom is uncalled for, we do need to watch this bill carefully for amendments and be ready to kill it ourselves if a posion pill is slipped in.

    Remember, the Hughes amendment banning new manufacture of machine guns was slipped into what was supposed to be a Firearm Owners Protection Act in 86.

    Just sayin.

    1. I don’t disagree. NRA’s track record for being able to kill bills that get poisoned pilled is pretty good these days, and they’ve demonstrated they are willing to do it for really bad amendments. This was demonstrated when the Senate amended an assault weapons ban renewal onto the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which caused the bill to be promptly killed.

    1. Jacob..

      May be a different climate, but ignoring the history of what the US Congress has done before regarding gun rights is ignorant. Besides, what sort of plan is “trust congress critters not to screw us over?”

      Sebastian, I agree totally. They seem to have learned their lesson, and as long as we watch carefully, this has the potential to be a net gain for gun owners.

  3. I should have been more clear. By political climate I meant that NRA and gun owners are better organized politically so the chances of an antigun rider being successfully attached to HR-822 as in ’86 is effectively zero.

    1. Also the NRA is no longer a “Sporting” organization, they have very much taken CCW, OC, and Defensive shooting under their big tent along with those who enjoy shooting paper, ducks, and deer.

      The whole core behind the AWB’s success was that the people who made up the NRA and the other political groups weren’t big owners of black rifles and double-stack pistols.

      Don’t know ’86 as well, but I can assume the NFA wasn’t getting as many applications back then as they are today, these days we have states removing their special NFA ban restrictions, and if somebody was to push a bill banning SBR or Suppressors in their state the bill would fail, and they’d have a tough race next election.

      That’s a HUGE climate shift.

Comments are closed.