TexasCHLforum.com

bblhd672 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:[quote="RoyGBiv]
...
Respectfully... There is nothing in that post that comes from the new bill. All of your worries are possible in current law.
Please... Show me NEW infringements in the NEW bill. There are none, AFAIK.

Exactly right. The Bill does not add one single grounds for denying Second Amendment rights. The Bill 1) creates national reciprocity; and 2) tries to get states and federal agencies to comply with CURRENT reporting requirements. Anyone opposed to No. 2 is arguing that current law should not be enforced.

Chas.

[/quote]

If the NICS current law contains everything that Cornyn's bill has, then why is it necessary? You are correct in that my problems with the NICS law pre-date Cornyn's bill, and they have more to do with how it is being interpreted vs. what the law says.

The term "adjudicated mentally defective" retains its original meaning from the GCA 1968 as amended. My argument is with the way it is currently being interpreted in the CFR. Adjudicated should not be an administrative process, especially post-Heller, when the adjudication can be by administrative fiat (VA, SSA, etc.). You are depriving someone of a fundamental right under the 2nd amendment by "putting them on a list" of mental defectives. Theoretically without any recourse or ability to challenge the adjudication.

The NICS improvement act didn't actually change 18 USC 922(g)(4), but it did suggest through its reporting improvement language that current interpretations in CFR which are IMO vague and contradictory should stand.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Last reply....
The new bill puts time requirements, review schedules, funding for training and other compliance requirements and measures onto current law.
Current law has no compliance measures.

The new law does not add any new ways for adding you to the denied list, it only enforces agencies to comply with current rules and sets schedules, measures and funds some training.
You should go read it.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

I have read it. And I still don’t trust Democrats.
I hope you’re right about it.
Don’t be surprised if reciprocity gets killed in order to pass the one the Democrats support.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Democrats want the Fix NICS bill to pass because they want current law enforced. It really is that simple. Frankly, so do most members of Congress and that's why Fix Nix as a stand-alone bill (HR4477) would have passed both the House and Senate. People who think otherwise don't have a clue what is going on in Washington. This whole theory that Fix NICS was dead and needed to be combined with HR38 (national reciprocity) to survive could not be more wrong. The best way, probably the only way, to pass National Reciprocity was to combined the bills.

Of course, Democrats will try to amend it with anti-gun provisions, but that won't fly.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

TacShot wrote:Louie Gohmert has it right. Listen to him on page 8.

Are we so eager to sell out on the combined bill, as is the NRA, so we can pound our chests and say we have National Reciprocity. I would not be surprised to see the Reciprocity portion stripped out and the Fix NICS (NIX would be more appropriate) portion survive and pass.

Memo to Mr Establishment, Senator Cornyn: If the Senate's most ardent gun grabbers, Schumer, Feinstein, Blumenthal, et al, cosponsor your bill, you screwed up big time.

I'm okay with the President vetoing this bill should it make it to his desk. Fix NICS should begin by enforcing the existing laws and regulations that are being ignored, not adding more infringements.

Did you read the bill?
Please post one section that adds a new infringement. I can find none.
AFAIK the bill is entirely about enforcing existing law.

See my previous "screed" on NICS. NICS is not your friend. It was a lousy compromise to deal with the Brady Bill's original unconstitutional commandeering of the States, after SCOTUS rules it unlawful.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4#p1179204

Respectfully... There is nothing in that post that comes from the new bill. All of your worries are possible in current law.
Please... Show me NEW infringements in the NEW bill. There are none, AFAIK.

Exactly right. The Bill does not add one single grounds for denying Second Amendment rights. The Bill 1) creates national reciprocity; and 2) tries to get states and federal agencies to comply with CURRENT reporting requirements. Anyone opposed to No. 2 is arguing that current law should not be enforced.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:Thank you, Mr. Cotton, for the link and reply. Now I'm curious what Congressman Massie really has against the bill...

This is pure speculation, but what he is saying sounds like Dudley Brown/NAGR lies. He may be buying Dudley's crap and/or he may have received campaign donations from NAGR. Again, this is pure speculation on my part, but the false information sounds very familiar.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I have read that Senator Schumer supports the "fix NICS" thing. Senator Schumer HATES law-abiding firearms owners, despises the 2nd Amendment, and would NEVER vote for ANY sort of bill that had anything positive to it concerning firearms. If he is indeed supporting that, then there MUST be something anti-2A and anti-firearms in it.

I give up.

Is there any untruth to what I stated?

Yes, there is. The bill will create national reciprocity. Show us the anti-gun provisions.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I saw a story by Congressman Massie stating that the two bills would be merged. Either the bill would pass and allow agencies to add names to NICS denials without adjudication, or the bill would not pass and thus national reciprocity would be killed. Either way the Democrats get something they want. I'm never quite sure what links are okay here because I know some sites don't have reputable programming, so I didn't want to post a link to the story. Is the merger NOT true? YOU I trust on this, if you say that isn't so.

There will be a vote to merge the bills. Both bills would pass the House as stand-alone bills and HR4477 would pass the Senate. However, HR38 as a stand-alone Bill would be killed by Senate Democrats by way of a filibuster and we'd have to start over. That would be much harder.

It is accurate to say that HR4477 gives Democrats something they want. That's why a combined bill will pass the Senate. It's also accurate to say that HR4477 gives Republicans the ability to tell their constituents that they addressed the Springhills Church shooting by trying to get states and agencies to comply with current law. HR4477 does not create one single new ground for disqualifying a person from possessing firearms. It does attempt to require states and agencies to report persons who are currently disqualified to the BATFE/FBI for inclusion in NICS. Again, it attempts to make states and agencies comply with current law. Arguing against that concept works to the advantage of the anti-gun crowd and empowers them to claim current laws don't work, so ban guns.

As for bump-stocks, I won't discuss that one in public.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I have read that Senator Schumer supports the "fix NICS" thing. Senator Schumer HATES law-abiding firearms owners, despises the 2nd Amendment, and would NEVER vote for ANY sort of bill that had anything positive to it concerning firearms. If he is indeed supporting that, then there MUST be something anti-2A and anti-firearms in it.

I give up.

Is there any untruth to what I stated?

Yes, there is. The bill will create national reciprocity. Show us the anti-gun provisions.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton, I saw a story by Congressman Massie stating that the two bills would be merged. Either the bill would pass and allow agencies to add names to NICS denials without adjudication, or the bill would not pass and thus national reciprocity would be killed. Either way the Democrats get something they want. I'm never quite sure what links are okay here because I know some sites don't have reputable programming, so I didn't want to post a link to the story. Is the merger NOT true? YOU I trust on this, if you say that isn't so.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017120 ... n-congress

K.Mooneyham wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

K.Mooneyham wrote:I have read that Senator Schumer supports the "fix NICS" thing. Senator Schumer HATES law-abiding firearms owners, despises the 2nd Amendment, and would NEVER vote for ANY sort of bill that had anything positive to it concerning firearms. If he is indeed supporting that, then there MUST be something anti-2A and anti-firearms in it.

I give up.

Is there any untruth to what I stated?

Yes, there is. The bill will create national reciprocity. Show us the anti-gun provisions.

Chas.