HR 822 Passes US House of Representatives

Probl'y not. And, just for this once, I agree with you: it should be enacted. There are plenty of states which, on an idividual basis, have license to carry reciprocity with each other. When I was living in New Hampshire, I had a license to carry concealed. But my home was right on the Massachusetts border and I drove into Mass. frequently. Afraid of the the Bay State's strict anti-gun laws which mandate a minimum of a one year prison term for anyone convicted of carrying weapon illegally ( leaving no discretion to the judge at all), I contacted Mass. State Police. They sent me a 'visitor's license' without any further investigation, merely on the strength of my already having a NH license.

Still, that involves time and red tape and there is no valid reason for a license issued by one state not to be valid in any other state.

A Constitutional right, a natural personal right, is yours to enjoy anywhere in America,
e.g., the right to free speech, the right to go to Church, freedom from
unwarranted searches n seizures, etc., including the right to defend
your life from predatory violence. If u go fishing in a State that is
unfriendly to self defense & u are set upon by a cougar or by a pack
of dogs, u have the same right to defend your life or the life of
your child or your mom, no matter WHERE u are.
That 's what the Founders intended.

I predict that HR 822 will be forgotten to death in the Senate because of Harry Reid
so that its passage in the House will have been an exercise in futility
and an exercise in hopeless stupidity.

If Justices Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas & Kennedy remain intact
in the USSC, then in my opinion, thay will do as thay already indicated
in the HELLER case and secure the right to bear arms
into the streets and wherever we go in America.

That will give rise to a few years, an insignificantly short time of personal freedom,
before the inevitable descent of our grandchildren into a despotism,
an ever deepening totalitarianism from which salvation will be impossible
as the technology of surveillance becomes progressively better.

It is the inevitable, manifest destiny of our grandchildren or their children
to become the Borg, with progressively less n less personal freedom,
as the collectivist powers of government inexorably increase
to infinity = O personal freedom for any citizen.

The loss of freedom will be welcomed and cheered as the popularity
of progressively more ubiquitous surveillance increases. More cameras
will pervade the streets as better satellites pervade the sky, looking down on our grandchildren.

Parents will exult in their ability to have low jack installed in their newborn children.
In time, government will be sent telemetry of the medical well being
of the bearer of the low jack, in addition to his whereabouts 24/7/365.
Accordingly, it will rush to the rescue, when he gets a heart attack
or another medical emergency; this will be welcomed by the public
as a good trade off for the freedom of privacy.


In all legislatures, the answer to every problem will be removal
of another increment of personal liberty; i.e., that a citizen MUST
do thus & so and that he is PROHIBITED from doing this or that,
with progressively fewer decisions to be rendered by the Individual
and progressively more decisions to be rendered by government
(who is not the servant, but the master of the citizens).

I will not live long enuf to see it. In my stage of life, my life is behind me.

Death will be MY immunity. I am safe, but will generations yet unborn
be so fortunate as to be able to die, as distinct from being
successfully kept alive, in worldwide collective bondage
by future mastery of genetic technology ??

From that collectivism, from that suppression of freedom,
no Ike nor any Patton shall come riding to the rescue.
I see no hope.
By this means, the anathema of communism will prevail, in endless nightmare.

Of whatever interest it may be:
Obama has never vetoed a gun bill, so far as I know.
If it got to him b4 the election, there remains a decent chance that he'd sign it,
but I expect Harry Reid to protect him from making that choice.

Does anyone believe that (in a non-election year for him) Harry Reid really favors defensive freedom ?

I think that NY is more severely anti-gun
than Mass. is.