TexasCHLforum.com

Anyone know how the Senate weighs in on this?

As bad as I want this the feds have the reverse of the midas touch, everything they touch turns to doggie poo. So I am really really fearful of the federal gov't having anything more to do with firearms. The second amendment should be enough, perhaps if they want to concentrate on something they can make the whole of the US into a constitutional carry state as the 2nd amendment comes before the 10th. That would both fix it and be constitutional at the same time.

The real issue is that Congress does have the constitutional authority (article IV, section 1) to pass this law, and the gun grabbers do not like it. They also have the implied authority to set minimum standards in order for licenses to be recognised under this law. What I am afraid of is an amendment to the bill that would require stuff like getting your local sheriff to sign off on your license (effectively making all shall-issue states into may-issue), requiring "mental health screening", renewals every year, listing permitted firearms on the license (make/model/serial), forcing all license holders to qualify with say 1000 rounds per firearm, a federal tax stamp, require liability insurance, and so on. There is a lot of potential damage that can be added to this bill, and we have to be ready to kill it should it get a poison pill. While the gun grabbers are screaming bloody murder over this bill right now, they are also planning to amend it and make it something useful to them.

So bigger government is good, so long as it's a cause we support, but bad when it's not? Curious!

RiverCity.45 wrote:So bigger government is good, so long as it's a cause we support, but bad when it's not? Curious!

From my point of view it is not bigger government. It is simplify reinforcing a right that has been trampled on since the end of the Civil War. I see this as a POSITIVE step. Believe it or not, there have been a whole lot of positive steps on the 2A front in the last decade.
If you like, you can characterize each and every one of them as some sort of State or Federal imposition on our existing Constitutional right. I simply feel that it is PROGRESS in what has been a hostile environment for over a century now.

As long as the Commerce Act is interpreted as it currently is, any 2A supporter should be supporting National Reciprocity.

As it stands, Congress can regulate firearms pretty much as it chooses -- not ban entirely perhaps, per Heller, but still lots of room for regulation. Lopez proved that, and there are plenty of other restrictions on the 2A based on the Commerce Clause power. You certainly will not find anyone on the anti-2A side who will nobly oppose Commerce power based restrictions on firearms because they think the Commerce power is abused. Thus opposing National Reciprocity or any other statute that expands the exercise of the 2A effectively means the power can be used to restrict, but not support, the right to bear arms.


If lightning strikes, and the SCOTUS suddenly wakes up and decides the Commerce clause power is much more limited than it is currently, then I will be happy to see National Reciprocity go down the tubes, since it would also be accompanied by a long list of restrictive statutes as well. But until then, I am not going to cede a big section of the battlefield to the Brady bunch.

Purplehood wrote: there have been a whole lot of positive steps on the 2A front in the last decade.
.

But NONE of them came from a bill passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the president.
In fact, nothing enacted by Congress since the BOR has had the purpose of expanding the recognition our firearm freedoms.

Who was it said (approximately) "Never is the public in peril save for when Congress is in session" ?

Rex B wrote:

Purplehood wrote: there have been a whole lot of positive steps on the 2A front in the last decade.
.

But NONE of them came from a bill passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the president.
In fact, nothing enacted by Congress since the BOR has had the purpose of expanding the recognition our firearm freedoms.

Who was it said (approximately) "Never is the public in peril save for when Congress is in session" ?

Don't you think that it is time for something positive to come out of Congress regarding the 2A rather than the drivel that we have seen in the past?

Purplehood wrote: Don't you think that it is time for something positive to come out of Congress regarding the 2A rather than the drivel that we have seen in the past?

Absolutely! But they have a horrible track record for defending our rights.
I don't trust them as far as I can throw the lot of them, especially with the Democrats in control of the Senate.

They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

But anyway, I'm in favor, hope this passes. Would be nice to have a firearm with me the next time I run through central park.

Bulldog1911 wrote:

They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

But anyway, I'm in favor, hope this passes. Would be nice to have a firearm with me the next time I run through central park.

Me too... Except for the "running" part...

RoyGBiv wrote:

Bulldog1911 wrote:

They're aligning with a number of elected officials and law enforcement organizations, who say this measure would make it even tougher for officers to determine which guns are on the streets legally or illegally.

But anyway, I'm in favor, hope this passes. Would be nice to have a firearm with me the next time I run for my lifethrough central park.

Me too... Except for the "running" part...

Fixed it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTYsITTw3qA&sns=em" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rex B wrote:

Purplehood wrote: there have been a whole lot of positive steps on the 2A front in the last decade.
.

But NONE of them came from a bill passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the president.
In fact, nothing enacted by Congress since the BOR has had the purpose of expanding the recognition our firearm freedoms.

Who was it said (approximately) "Never is the public in peril save for when Congress is in session" ?

There was the national park carry which Obama signed

loadedliberal wrote:

Rex B wrote:

Purplehood wrote: there have been a whole lot of positive steps on the 2A front in the last decade.
.

But NONE of them came from a bill passed by the US Congress and signed into law by the president.
In fact, nothing enacted by Congress since the BOR has had the purpose of expanding the recognition our firearm freedoms.

Who was it said (approximately) "Never is the public in peril save for when Congress is in session" ?

There was the national park carry which Obama signed

I stand corrected. Good catch