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.

Welcome to bureaucracy 101. Government agencies set priorities according to what must be done under threat of penalty, what must get done to keep other agencies off their backs, what must be done that makes their bosses look good (or not look as bad as other bosses), and finally just plain old what must be done. NICS has fallen under the last category for a long time - mainly due to politics. The last administration had no real interest in enforcing NICS compliance because every madman that skipped through the "cracks" was an opportunity to advance their own ideology. Fix-NICS won't change that, but the antis will claim a victory, and our side will be able to say that they've already done something when the next tragedy strikes.

Question: How would HR38 be enforced? NY, NJ, MD, and several other non-gun friendly states have been ignoring FOPA since its inception. What's to stop these anti-gun states from simply arresting out of staters on state gun violations? Is there anything in HR38 that would provide a penalty for states that violate it?