Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!

[chasfm11]

It will never be taken up by the Senate, other than to be buried in committee. Corker, McLame, Collins, Flake, and the rest of the surrender caucus will see to that and it would never get a cloture vote anyway with Schmuckie Schumer and Liawatha in the Senate.

In fairness, it would take some cross-over Democrats to get to the 60 total for cloture, as I understand it. The Dems are far more vigorous and brutal about policing their ranks than the GOP seems to be. Even though some Dem Senators would be somewhat exposed by a "no" vote on cloture for this bill, I doubt that any will break ranks now and vote with the Republicans - on anything. As you point out, there are always "Republicans" who do exactly that and with impunity.

[ScottDLS]

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

[spectre]

If it doesn't come up for a vote in the Senate - not even a cloture vote - it's because the Republican leadership is providing cover for the wolves in their midst.

[RoyGBiv]

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.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[crazy2medic]

Question for you guys, do all States issue carry permits in some format? I know New York does but you have to be politically connected or wealthy!

[RoyGBiv]

Question for you guys, do all States issue carry permits in some format? I know New York does but you have to be politically connected or wealthy!

All states have a permit system. Several states are "May Issue" and others are "May Issue" but so restrictive that they are essentially "no issue", even though they technically do have a license program...

So, if you are asking whether, if reciprocity passes into law, would a TX licensee be able to carry in all 50 states, I believe the answe is YES, based on the text of the House-passed bill.

Some US territories are no-issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed ... s#No-issue

[bblhd672]

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.

[Flightmare]

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.

For the same reason Texas passed SB4 this past session. It basically mandated that local jurisdictions were not allowed to flaunt federal immigration law. I agree with you in principal though that it should not be necessary.

[ScottDLS]

Question for you guys, do all States issue carry permits in some format? I know New York does but you have to be politically connected or wealthy!

All states have a permit system. Several states are "May Issue" and others are "May Issue" but so restrictive that they are essentially "no issue", even though they technically do have a license program...

So, if you are asking whether, if reciprocity passes into law, would a TX licensee be able to carry in all 50 states, I believe the answe is YES, based on the text of the House-passed bill.

Some US territories are no-issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed ... s#No-issue

Vermont does not have a permit system.

[lama]

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.

I agree with you, but many are saying we should right Reciprocity because this is attached. I question their logic as fighting reciprocity because it is tied to "also, follow the law" seems like and odd fight to pick.

ETA: I am no expert and may very well be missing something (I read the law but am not skilled in IDing every consequence) If there is something that actually adds limitations my question of their logic would likely change.

[ScottDLS]

[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][/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.

[RoyGBiv]

Question for you guys, do all States issue carry permits in some format? I know New York does but you have to be politically connected or wealthy!

All states have a permit system. Several states are "May Issue" and others are "May Issue" but so restrictive that they are essentially "no issue", even though they technically do have a license program...

So, if you are asking whether, if reciprocity passes into law, would a TX licensee be able to carry in all 50 states, I believe the answe is YES, based on the text of the House-passed bill.

Some US territories are no-issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed ... s#No-issue

Vermont does not have a permit system.

Did you read the bill?
Residents of constitutional carry states just have to show a drivers license to prove residency of a CC state.

[RoyGBiv]

[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][/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.