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

What's going on in Washington, D.C.?

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4136
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

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

#121

Post by chasfm11 »

ScottDLS wrote: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. :yawn
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.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dum Spiro, Spero
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

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

#122

Post by ScottDLS »

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.
:iagree: 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
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
User avatar

spectre
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 347
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 11:44 am

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

#123

Post by 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.
I'm in a good place right now
Not emotionally or financially
But I am at the gun store
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 9503
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

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

#124

Post by RoyGBiv »

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.
:iagree: 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.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

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

#125

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

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.
:iagree: 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
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:59 am

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

#126

Post by 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!
Government, like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master
If you ain't paranoid you ain't paying attention
Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here- John Parker
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 9503
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

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

#127

Post by RoyGBiv »

crazy2medic wrote: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
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4811
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 10:43 am
Location: TX

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

#128

Post by bblhd672 »

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.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
User avatar

Flightmare
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2016 7:00 pm
Location: Plano, TX

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

#129

Post by Flightmare »

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.
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.
Deplorable lunatic since 2016
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

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

#130

Post by ScottDLS »

RoyGBiv wrote:
crazy2medic wrote: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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"

lama
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:25 pm

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

#131

Post by lama »

bblhd672 wrote: 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.
User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 5052
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

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

#132

Post by ScottDLS »

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][/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.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 9503
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

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

#133

Post by RoyGBiv »

ScottDLS wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:
crazy2medic wrote: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.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 9503
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

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

#134

Post by RoyGBiv »

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][/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.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
Post Reply

Return to “Federal”