TexasCHLforum.com

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][/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.

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.

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.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote:I've been watching the debate live on the CSPAN web site. ALL of the democrats who have spoken have repeated the same theme.

This bill puts more guns into the hands of violent criminals.
This bill makes your family less safe.
This bill puts guns in every corner of America.
This bill will result in more gun violence, not less.

All they have talked about is the heinous mass shootings over the last few years, and how this bill will lead to more, not less.

Do these people really believe what they are saying? If so, they know absolutely nothing about concealed carry permit holders. If so, they don't even understand what this bill does.

They are ignorant on the issue, which isn't a terrible thing. They just don't have enough interest to get themselves educated on the facts.

But they are also too dumb, or too dishonest, to admit their ignorance. They should either get educated, or just abstain from votes on things they no nothing about. I'm fine with them doing either one.

I don't think they are dumb or ignorant of the facts. Dishonest, yes. They are unwilling to accept facts over their disarmament agenda.

RPBrown wrote:Like I said earlier, I contacted my Representative and didn't expect much if anything because he has that bid D by his name. I just got a reply from him and here is what he said:


MARC VEASEY
33RD DISTRICT, TEXAS

Congress of the United States // House of Representatives // Washington, DC 20515

December 1, 2017
Mr. Raymond P. Brown
1909 Rusdell Dr
Irving, TX 75060-6550

Dear Mr. Brown,

Thank you for contacting me to express your thoughts and concerns regarding H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As you may know, this bill was introduced by Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC) in January 2017. If enacted, H.R. 38 would amend the federal criminal code to require all states to recognize other states' permits allowing for concealed carrying of firearms.

I support the Second Amendment and an individual's right to bear arms, and am committed to enacting responsible and sensible laws that will continue to improve our safety while preserving those rights. Currently, H.R. 38 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Should legislation regarding this issue come to the House floor for a vote, please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind.

Thank you again for contacting me. I welcome any further comments you have on this issue or any other topic important to our country. As an engaged and thoughtful citizen, you play a critical role in our country's democracy. I encourage you to stay in touch with me through my official website, http://www.veasey.house.gov, Facebook.com/CongressmanMarcVeasey page, and @RepVeasey Twitter account.


Sincerely,
(signed)
Marc Veasey
Member of Congress
MV/EE

I have my thoughts on this reply but would like to hear your thoughts

He will keep your views in mind while voting the way he is expected to vote by Demorat leadership.

TreyHouston wrote:I bet the Republicans at the baseball game remember why this should pass! This Government has no empathy unless it has personally happened to them!

The Republicans should take note of the fact that only their party has been targeted by a gunman who is a member of the opposition party. And shove CC Reciprocity and the Hearing Protection Act down their throats. But, there I go, having the fantasy that the Republican majority actually cares about what the people who voted them into office want.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:And it is a sad commentary on the modern Democratic party that they are on the complete opposite side of this modern day civil rights fight. They have come a long way, in the wrong direction, from the leadership of JFK.

I wonder what Martin Luther King, Jr. would think of the civil rights movement today which emphasizes color of skin over content of character, and declares racism only exists in white people.

Reminders sent.

I expect nothing from the Republican majorities in the House and Senate. I don’t expect President Trump to receive a bill to sign into law.