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

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

Moderators: Charles L. Cotton, carlson1

User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 27
Posts: 7413
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!

#136

Post by RoyGBiv » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:47 pm

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.!
Image
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek

User avatar

bblhd672
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 4061
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!

#137

Post by bblhd672 » Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:14 pm

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.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 17203
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!

#138

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:19 pm

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.
Image


TexasCajun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: La Marque, TX

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

#139

Post by TexasCajun » Tue Dec 19, 2017 5:23 am

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.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012


ralewis
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2005 12:37 pm

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

#140

Post by ralewis » Tue Dec 19, 2017 1:38 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.
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.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

It's been quiet on the Reciprocity Bill, and I assume it's because of the Tax Bill. Hope it gets revisited after the Tax work is done.

Post Reply

Return to “Federal”