TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Anyone opposed to No. 2 is arguing that current law should not be enforced.

Chas.

Not trying to be flippant nor disrespectful, but why do we need a new law to make agencies comply with current law? Why not just enforce current laws?

My problem with this attempt to "fix NICS" is the long list of avowed anti-2A Democrats who co-sponsored it.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... atic%22%7D
I have zero trust of them to not pass something that will allow them to take away law abiding citizens guns or restrict what guns we are allowed to purchase/own.

I would like it very much that current law be enforced. Just don't understand why a law needs another law requiring enforcement of the original law.

To recap, what are some clues that you should be concerned with the fix-NICS bill?

(1) The first sentence after the title of the bill reads “Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended…”
(2) Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are cosponsors in the Senate.
(3) It’s being rammed through, without a hearing, in a very nontransparent process, and it will be passed by attaching it to the popular concealed carry reciprocity bill which already has enough votes to pass on its own.
(4) It spends over half a billion dollars to collect more names to include in a list of people who will never be allowed to own a firearm.
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.