TexasCHLforum.com

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.

It's a shame that we even need this legislation. If the SCOTUS was doing it's job, we wouldn't have states violating the civil rights of their citizens in this manner. The whole issue reminds me a lot of the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's. I am a firm believer in state's rights. But that doesn't mean that states should be able to violate the basic civil rights of their residents, or residents of other states who are visiting / driving through. If a state can't deny citizens the right to vote, then they should not be able to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Limited rules and regulations on both are fine, as long as they don't infringe on the basic right. We shouldn't need legislation for this. It is already covered by the U.S. Constitution, IMHO.

But given that the SCOTUS has basically abdicated all power and responsibility in most areas, unfortunately, I think we do need the federal government to step in. Maybe it's time for President Trump to federalize the national guard in states like New York, New Jersey, and California, just like JFK did to enforce school desegregation in the south.

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.

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.

Bill Flores' office had no information on where he stands, other than he supports the 2nd Amendment.

Lovely.

bblhd672 wrote:

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.

He would realize that his dream of a color blind society is just that. A dream. He would also realize that those who are fighting for the advancement of his dream today are being called racists.

If MLK was alive today the left would be trying to marginalize and demonize him. If I remember correctly, he liked women, maybe a bit too much, so they would probably label him a sex offender to silence his "outdated" viewpoint.

Being a "co-sponsor" on an issue/bill is a dog and pony show. I've seen in the past where a "co-sponsor" has voted against a bill when brought up for a vote. The excuse is always that what was brought to the floor was not the same as the one sponsored. Committees do get reckless with wording trying to make things "bi-partisan".

Glad to see my rep John Carter is also a co-sponsor. Sent him an email anyway.

Agreed the Senate is going to be the tough part. Schumer has already stated he'll filibuster in the Senate.

Crossroads wrote:Glad to see my rep John Carter is also a co-sponsor. Sent him an email anyway.

Agreed the Senate is going to be the tough part. Schumer has already stated he'll filibuster in the Senate.

Time to pull a Harry Reid on them then...go nuclear.

pbwalker wrote:

Crossroads wrote:Glad to see my rep John Carter is also a co-sponsor. Sent him an email anyway.

Agreed the Senate is going to be the tough part. Schumer has already stated he'll filibuster in the Senate.

Time to pull a Harry Reid on them then...go nuclear.

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!

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.

pbwalker wrote:

Crossroads wrote:Glad to see my rep John Carter is also a co-sponsor. Sent him an email anyway.

Agreed the Senate is going to be the tough part. Schumer has already stated he'll filibuster in the Senate.

Time to pull a Harry Reid on them then...go nuclear.

Won't need to, the GOPe surrender caucus of "McLame", Collins, and "Corky", will join Nancy and Chuck to block any meaningful legislation. The "Maverick" doesn't think you peons should have semi-autos or "big clips".

I have no problem voting third party in the 2018 elections if the Republicans don't deliver.

House Judiciary Committee Green Lights Reciprocity Bill

Fairfax, Va.—The House Judiciary Committee today approved H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, by a vote of 19-11. H.R. 38 would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state laws that makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to travel across the country with their firearms for personal protection. Under the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, states would be required to honor the valid concealed carry permits issued by other states, while ensuring that felons and the dangerously mentally ill do not get access to firearms.

Pawpaw wrote:House Judiciary Committee Green Lights Reciprocity Bill

Fairfax, Va.—The House Judiciary Committee today approved H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, by a vote of 19-11. H.R. 38 would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state laws that makes it difficult for law-abiding permit holders to travel across the country with their firearms for personal protection. Under the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, states would be required to honor the valid concealed carry permits issued by other states, while ensuring that felons and the dangerously mentally ill do not get access to firearms.

Anyone have a link to the actual voting?
Trying to find out if any D's voted in favor.
The congress link hasn't been updated with the committee votes yet.

Maybe tomorrow they'll update the page?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con ... se-bill/38

treadlightly wrote:Bill Flores' office had no information on where he stands, other than he supports the 2nd Amendment.

Lovely.

EVERY POLITICIAN "supports the 2nd Amendment." Way too many say "I support the 2nd Amendment comma but ..."