Community for Kel-Tec Shooters banner

41 - 56 of 56 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
I don't feel like arguing with the rest of this because I've already made my statements and listed references to support my position.

Yeah. Except for this legislation's intention to add more people to the NICS database
Except for this. No. I've read the Bill and I encourage you to do so too. The intention of this Bill is quite obviously not to add people to NICS who shouldn't be on the prohibited list. Instead, very clearly, in Section 6, it specifies that people who already should be on the prohibited list anyway are to be added to it. Anyone who should answer yes (disqualified) on questions 11b through 12c on Form 4473 should be in the database. The Bill, as written, primarily is about making sure that government agencies and departments actually do that.

Is it a "good bill"? Well, it doesn't return the U.S. to December 15, 1791. Is it a "bad bill." Well, I've read it and listened to what experts say about it and it doesn't do the scary things that have been claimed about it.

Again, I encourage you to read the Bill and to find out what 2A lawyers are saying about it, instead of politicians or fund-raising organizations.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
FWIW, I just found this article from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. (NRA-ILA)

It says many of the same things that I've concluded.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-self-defense-legislation-pending-in-congress

FACT CHECK: Rep. Thomas Massie Spreading Misinformation About Comprehensive Self-Defense Legislation Pending in Congress

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

In a recent Facebook Post, Congressman Thomas Massie (KY-4) included several inaccurate statements about H.R. 4477, the Fix-NICS bill. Below are some facts to set the record straight:

CLAIM: “The bill will also advance former President Obama’s agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veteran’s Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background check database to deny gun purchases.”

FACT: The bill requires that federal agencies submit the names of anyone who is already prohibited by law from possessing a firearm to the NICS background check database. This differs from former President Obama’s efforts, in which he attempted to administratively create new categories of individuals who were prohibited from possessing a firearm. H.R. 4477, by contrast, is aimed squarely at individuals like the perpetrator of the recent murders in Texas, who should have been reported to NICS because of his disqualifying criminal history.

CLAIM: “The bill is being rammed through, without a hearing, in a very nontransparent process, and it will be passed by attaching it to the popular concealed carry reciprocity bill which already has enough votes to pass on its own.”

FACT: The bill went through a very thorough and public markup session of its own. And like the concealed carry reciprocity bill, the Fix NICS bill would also have enough votes to pass on its own.

CLAIM: “It spends over half a billion dollars to collect more names to include in a list of people who will never be allowed to own a firearm.”

FACT: The bill incentivizes states to transmit the records of individuals who, under current law, are already prohibited from possessing a firearm. It does not create new categories of restriction.

CLAIM: “It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.”

FACT: Since 1994, administrative agencies have been required to report individuals who are prohibited under current law from possessing a firearm to NICS. Fix-NICS merely adds additional layers of transparency and accountability to the process, as a well as a new 60-day deadline for the government to resolve claims of records that have been erroneously included in NICS.​
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
I am late to this party so i havent read all these posts but i must say that i am against this move. It puts the federal governments nose firmly under the tent in gaining total control over your rights!
Remember this is about a right not a privilege like driving however there are similarities.

First before all the states could agree to give you a reciprocal driver's license they all had to agree to the requirements to get one.

If you think States like New York Massachusetts California and Illinois are going to lower the requirements to suit our interpretation of the Second Amendment you are nuts!

What will really happen is all of the states that have no requirement for a permit to conceal carry will all of a sudden have this big test and all of these hoops to jump through in order to get a concealed carry permit it will always go towards the harder never towards the more constitutional position.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
I am wary of a trap being set inside this bill, that down the road might be very bad news for concealed carry license carry holders. I'm Ok, with never driving through, NY, NJ, MA, IL and any other state whose gun rules I don't like.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
The intention of this Bill is quite obviously not to add people to NICS who shouldn't be on the prohibited list. Instead, very clearly, in Section 6, it specifies that people who already should be on the prohibited list anyway are to be added to it. Anyone who should answer yes (disqualified) on questions 11b through 12c on Form 4473 should be in the database.
I think you're missing my point. There is increasingly a divide between the title of a bill or a bill summary and what the bill will actually do when it's enacted into law. It's deliberate. A lot of care is taken in crafting the wording so it seems to say one thing and actually does another. Changing the meaning is nothing new. The interstate commerce clause in the United States Constitution was originally intended to encourage interstate commerce by allowing the federal government the power to prevent interstate tariffs so that a product shipped from one state to another couldn't be heavily taxed under the justification that it was being transported through some other state. In the language of the day, "regulate commerce" meant that commerce was to be made regular, which is to say consistent and operating properly, in much the way that a clock's pendulum was called the regulator. It was a device that helped the clock operate properly and in a dependable and predictable manner. Often times, words have one meaning in common use and a completely different legal meaning, but in this particular case, the entire meaning of the word "regulate" has been altered, even in common usage.

The USA PATRIOT Act basically authorizes the US government to spy on US citizens and it grants broad new powers to the federal government. It's anathema to patriots.

The Affordable Care Act made heath insurance more expensive. Jonathan Gruber, he chief architect of the ACA later admitted that they were only able to pass the bill because the American public is stupid and easily misled.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/26/jonathan-gruber-infamous-obamacare-architect-says-/

For a really good example of a bill seeming to say one thing and actually doing another, take a look at Section 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 Defense Authorization Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natio...ar_2012#Detention_without_trial:_Section_1021

Legal experts and constitutional scholars warned that the federal government was granting itself the power to snatch US citizens and hold them in military prisons without due process, while politicians assured us that the bill doesn't say that, and of course they'd never do that (fingers crossed behind their backs), but Congress refused to amend the bill to specifically and unambiguously state that it doesn't apply to US citizens on US soil. The weasel wording allowed plenty of room for people to argue about the meaning, but of course a government that does factually illegal things in secret will construe this to mean that they can black bag any citizens that it determines to be a threat. Just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't or they won't.

In his confirmation hearing, when asked about bulk NSA wiretaps of US citizens, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper deliberately lied to Congress, which would be a felony if you or I did it. He later offered the excuse that he told the "least untruthful answer".

https://www.usnews.com/news/article...esume-calls-for-james-clapper-perjury-charges

So, tell me again why I should take the federal government at its word when it assures us that Fix NICS isn't going to add more people to the NICS database so they can be denied the right to purchase firearms. There have been attempts to get people out of the database who don't belong in there (and apparently that's more than 90% of the people in the NICS database), but as I explained in my previous post, anti-gun states like Massachusetts have been deliberately filling the NICS database with traffic ticket offenders, and when they're removed in an effort to actually fix NICS, Massachusetts added them back under a different category to prevent them from being removed. States like Massachusetts don't want to fix NICS. They want to use NICS to deny as many firearms purchases as possible. Sporadic good intentions aside, that's largely how NICS is being used today and the Fix NICS bill will do a lot more of that in the future.

Far from fixing NICS, this bill is mostly a means to fund more of the old broken NICS that infringes on an American's right to keep and bear arms and provides no real security in return. It's a bad system that hasn't worked, and as usual, the government is going to make it worse under the guise of fixing it. It's the same anti-gun argument. First they want a few common sense gun laws. When those don't work, they want a few more. They plan to keep taking away our guns to keep us safe. The anti-gun forces have been frustrated lately when Americans won't tolerate any more gun laws that only infringe on legal firearms ownership while doing nothing to correct crime or mental illness, so the anti-gunners have been forced to change tactics. Instead of adding to the 40,000+ ineffective anti-gun laws, now they're going to "Fix NICS".



FWIW, I just found this article from the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. (NRA-ILA)
I think it's absolutely hilarious that you criticize those who trust "politicians or fund-raising organizations" and then you provide an NRA link to their article defending their bill that they've used for a lot of fund raising. As the 800 pound gorilla of political organizations, the NRA has a lot of political power. That's usually good for gun owners, but they're often criticized for being too political. Politics is largely a matter of compromise. There have been criticisms that the NRA played a large role in the 1968 Gun Control Act. I don't know to what extent that's true. What political machinations occur in dark smoke filled rooms are difficult to prove or disprove. However, in the immediate wake of the recent Las Vegas mass murder, the NRA was very quick to give up bump fire stocks. Bad optics, so they made a quick political decision on our behalf. It was easy for them to throw bump stocks under the bus. The NRA has always been mostly about hunting. I think they must know that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, but they just can't seem to help themselves. Here's past NRA board member Joaquin Jackson explaining why you and I only need a five round magazine and only the government should have more than that.

(2 minute video)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
It puts the federal governments nose firmly under the tent in gaining total control over your rights!
How?

First before all the states could agree to give you a reciprocal driver's license they all had to agree to the requirements to get one.
What? The training requirements for a drivers license are different for each state.

For example, compare Texas and Ohio:

TX Behind-the-Wheel Requirements
https://www.dmv.org/tx-texas/drivers-training.php
If you're younger than 18 years old, you'll need to complete a total of 30 hours of behind-the-wheel training, including:

7 hours of behind-the-wheel driver's training with your driving instructor.
7 hours of in-car observation as part of your driver's training.
30 hours of supervised practice with a licensed adult.

You'll be able to begin your driver's training after you:

Have completed the classroom portion of your Driver's Ed course.
Apply for your learner's permit.
Are at least 15 years old.

Texas Driver's Training Course

Behind-the-wheel driver's training is a component of your Texas Driver's Ed course and can be completed through:

Professional driver's training schools.
Parent-taught driver's education (PTDE) programs.
Public schools.

Your course must include at least:

7 hours of behind-the-wheel practice.
7 hours of observation.

You will receive a certificate of completion after you complete each component of your Driver's Ed/behind-the-wheel program.

For more information about each option for completing Driver's Ed/driver's training:

Contact your school.
Visit the TX DPS website for information about Parent-Taught Driver's Ed.
Search the complete list of professional driver's training schools.

Completing your driver's training component will allow you to directly apply the defensive driving skills and safe driving techniques you'll have learned about during the classroom portion of your driver's education program.
Supervised Driving Practice in Texas

Before you can advance from your learner's permit to your provisional driver's license, you'll also need to practice driving with a licensed adult who is at least 21 years old.

You must complete an additional 30 hours of supervised driving with at least 10 hours completed at night.
=========
Ohio requires
https://www.dmv.org/oh-ohio/drivers-ed.php
Classroom & Behind-the-Wheel Hours

Regardless of which Ohio Driver's Ed method you choose (see “Types of Driver's Ed Courses" below), you'll complete:

24 hours of classroom education.
8 hours of behind-the-wheel training.

When you complete the course, your instructor will provide you with a completion certificate. You'll need to submit this certificate when you take the driving skills test.

Probationary Driver's License

Before you can apply for your probationary OH driver's license, you must:

Be at least 16 years old.
Have held your learner's permit for at least 6 months.
Complete a total of 50 hours (10 hours at night) of supervised driving and submit a Fifty Hour Affidavit (Form BMV 5791).
Pass the driving skills test.
If you think States like New York Massachusetts California and Illinois are going to lower the requirements to suit our interpretation of the Second Amendment you are nuts!
They will sue. 100% chance. Then it goes up the district and appellate, eventually to SCOTUS.

What will really happen is all of the states that have no requirement for a permit to conceal carry will all of a sudden have this big test and all of these hoops to jump through in order to get a concealed carry permit it will always go towards the harder never towards the more constitutional position.
That is NOT how the Reciprocity Bill is written.

Read it: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?format=txt

Seriously. It has a lot of very good stuff in there, including leveling penalties on states like NH for arresting people with out of state licenses for carrying. Financial penalties, that is. And it allows for awarding legal fees and damages to the people who get arrested.

Further, the way it is currently written, people in a state that refuses to issue ("May Issue") can get a license from a Shall Issue state and the May Issue state in which they reside will be forced to recognize it. In fact, the worst part of the bill is Section 101 (e) (2) which defines loaded magazines as a gun. The reason that they do that is to force Mass, NY, and other to stop arresting people for having "banned magazines" by sweeping mags in under Reciprocity too.

The Bill is short and pretty easy to read. Take 10 min. and read it. Seriously, it doesn't do the horrible things I've heard about it. It doesn't give the Government control of who is issued, it doesn't create a national registration, it doesn't issue USG CC licenses, it doesn't force other states training standards out to anywhere else. It's pretty good Bill.

What it does do is this (paraphrased): If the state/district/territory has any CC permitting system, either May or Shall (which is literally all of them), then they MUST recognize the permit of anyone permitted from another state using whatever that state issues as a picture ID for the permit.

That means that Vermont, which never has had licensed CC but has always allowed CC to any non-prohibited person, is good. If you have a photo ID from Vermont and you are not prohibited by Federal law, you can CC in any state/territory/district.

It's a good Bill.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pinstriper

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
I am wary of a trap being set inside this bill, that down the road might be very bad news for concealed carry license carry holders. I'm Ok, with never driving through, NY, NJ, MA, IL and any other state whose gun rules I don't like.
Not everyone is you.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,046 Posts
That means that Vermont, which never has had licensed CC but has always allowed CC to any non-prohibited person, is good. If you have a photo ID from Vermont and you are not prohibited by Federal law, you can CC in any state/territory/district.
That does sound good, if naively optimistic. Again, I'm not sanguine about the federal government as the defender of my right to keep and bear arms, given that they've consistently cast themselves in the opposite role throughout history.

Even assuming the federal government is suddenly my new bestest gun rights buddy, and assuming that states don't suddenly assert their state's rights as described in the 10th amendment now that the federal government is acting on behalf of the citizens instead of big government, how exactly would this work in practice? The police already have FAR too many laws to enforce. In addition to thousands of pages of state law, the police are responsible to some extent for understanding and enforcing many of the gazillion federal laws. As a gun rights activist, I think it's safe to say that I have a better understanding of my state's firearms laws that at least 95% of the police officers in the state. That's not a criticism of the police. I specialize in this one area but they are expected to know all of the laws. It's not humanly possible. Not even close. After national concealed carry reciprocity, our police are going to be expected to know the gun laws in all fifty states and US territories? I suppose in the mathematical sense, it's no more impossible than the currently impossible expectations, in the same sense that infinity times infinity is infinity. 50 times impossible is still impossible, but what kind of mess can we expect when someone from Alaska tries to apply their local firearms customs and laws in New Jersey?

Whenever a new concealed carry law is enacted, the anti-gunners scream about blood in the streets as a result. It never happens, but I can definitely see police in anti-gun states shooting visitors from free states who expect their rights to be respected under national concealed carry reciprocity.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
I think you're missing my point.
No. I get it. You are understandably worried that there is a poison pill there. But the pills which have been called out aren't there. The bill is short and easy to read and, further, lawyers and actual experts have weighed in. The currently stated worries that people have, well, aren't.

So, tell me again why I should take the federal government at its word when it assures us that Fix NICS isn't going to add more people to the NICS database so they can be denied the right to purchase firearms.
Who's saying take the government's word for it? I'm saying that this Bill doesn't give them the authority to do so. It's pretty plain, actually. Section 6 is very clear. Have you read it yet?

If your concern is that the government is going to ignore the language of this Bill and do whatever the heck they want anyway, then I have to say that it is a problem outside of and unaffected by the Bill. The Bill as written doesn't give the government any excuses for those sort of shenanigans.


There have been attempts to get people out of the database who don't belong in there (and apparently that's more than 90% of the people in the NICS database),
And this Bill actually has language to force the removal of erroneous entries. It requires the Attorney General to remove the erroneous entries, gives him not more than 60 days to do so, and even allocates money to achieve this so that he can't piss and moan latter that it can't be done because he doesn't have the man-power. It's right there in Section 202 (2) of the amended Bill.


but as I explained in my previous post, anti-gun states like Massachusetts have been deliberately filling the NICS database with traffic ticket offenders, and when they're removed in an effort to actually fix NICS, Massachusetts added them back under a different category to prevent them from being removed. States like Massachusetts don't want to fix NICS. They want to use NICS to deny as many firearms purchases as possible. Sporadic good intentions aside, that's largely how NICS is being used today and the Fix NICS bill will do a lot more of that in the future.
Again, they have been doing this before the Bill. Are you saying that your problem with the Bill is that it has no language which further criminalizes this already criminal action?

Far from fixing NICS, this bill is mostly a means to fund more of the old broken NICS that infringes on an American's right to keep and bear arms and provides no real security in return
By forcing government agencies and departments to report to NICS people who they should have been reporting anyway?

It's a bad system that hasn't worked, and as usual, the government is going to make it worse under the guise of fixing it.
So what you're saying is that NICS doesn't really keep criminals from getting guns because they will Straw Purchase, steal, or black market their guns? We agree on that. Nothing will change that but I simply see no evidence of this Bill making it worse than it already is for law abiding citizens. Nothing really changes for us except that it makes it harder for criminals to buy a gun through an FFL.

It's the same anti-gun argument. First they want a few common sense gun laws. When those don't work, they want a few more. They plan to keep taking away our guns to keep us safe. The anti-gun forces have been frustrated lately when Americans won't tolerate any more gun laws that only infringe on legal firearms ownership while doing nothing to correct crime or mental illness, so the anti-gunners have been forced to change tactics. Instead of adding to the 40,000+ ineffective anti-gun laws, now they're going to "Fix NICS".
I get the argument against incrementalism. I'm right there too. But I see no evidence at all that this Bill is incrementalism. All it does is make an attempt to force agencies to report disqualified people who should have been being reported anyway. This isn't incrementalism.

I think it's absolutely hilarious that you criticize those who trust "politicians
I was trying to be nice. If you'll recall, you went on for a good while about how we can't trust politicians, but your initial post was about how we can trust Rep. Massie, an um.... politician.

or fund-raising organizations"
Again, I was being polite. GOA has a well earned reputation of only being about fund raising and basically a rip-off organization. Whether or not you trust the NRA-ILA (which is a separate entity from the NRA), well, OK. At least the NRA-ILA has legislative successes.

I trust the SAF most, and they don't have the same problems with this Bill that Rep. Massie and, I guess, you seem to have. Slightly below that is the NRA-ILA. I do trust them but not as much as SAF. Below that is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. I still trust them but a bit less given some of the stuff they did in the 70's. Still NSSF also doesn't have the problems with this bill that Rep. Massie seems to have.

Now, after listening to 2A lawyers and experts, and also reading the Bill myself, I have to agree with SAF, NRA-ILA, NSSF, and the lawyers that the horrible infringements, poison pills, and camel-noses that is being claimed of this Bill just aren't really there.

and then you provide an NRA link to their article defending their bill that they've used for a lot of fund raising. As the 800 pound gorilla of political organizations, the NRA has a lot of political power. That's usually good for gun owners, but they're often criticized for being too political.
Well, the "ILA" part does stand for Institute for Legislative Action. So, yeah, it is by nature political. No argument there.

Politics is largely a matter of compromise. There have been criticisms that the NRA played a large role in the 1968 Gun Control Act.
And for that, and other sins, they paid for it in the Cincinnati Revolution, which essentially kicked out all of the leadership responsible for said sins.

I don't know to what extent that's true. What political machinations occur in dark smoke filled rooms are difficult to prove or disprove. However, in the immediate wake of the recent Las Vegas mass murder, the NRA was very quick to give up bump fire stocks.
Yup. And it pissed me off too. I sent an email to every single Board member about it too. Did you let them know how you felt about it? I can give you a quick link if you want to.

Bad optics, so they made a quick political decision on our behalf. It was easy for them to throw bump stocks under the bus.
An unnamed "insider" whispered it out that the actual goal was that they were trying to short-circuit bump stock bans by forcing the BATFE to re-review it. The thought process was, apparently, that even the "O"-era BATFE had reviewed their legality several times and had always come out with "legal." So there was no reason to believe that a Trompe-ere BATFE wouldn't do the same thing. By saying "let the ATF decide" then it takes the wind out of the sails of the gun-grabbers.

If that was the actual goal (and I have no proof one way or the other) then the timing and actual wording of the statement botched it horribly.

The NRA has always been mostly about hunting.
No it wasn't. That's a 70's era misconception. The NRA has always been about military proficiency since its inception and has been very much interested in preserving firearms rights.

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress...ciation-before-the-cincinnati-revolt-of-1977/

Heck, even in the pages of National Rifleman, an NRA publication which was fairly focused on military riflery, hunting, and outdoors, a consistent 5%-ish of content was Self Defense related right up to the Cincinnati Revolution.

https://gunculture2point0.wordpress...-advertising-the-american-rifleman-1918-2017/

I think they must know that the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, but they just can't seem to help themselves. Here's past NRA board member Joaquin Jackson explaining why you and I only need a five round magazine and only the government should have more than that.
(2 minute video)
Yup. And when he got called on it, he backpedaled so fast his training wheels almost came off, claiming that what he was really talking about was FA machine guns.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20070815/statement-of-joaquin-jackson-1

IMS, he eventually lost his spot on the Board, in no small part because of that. Which is exactly how things are supposed to work.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
That does sound good, if naively optimistic.
It's one of the many reasons Democrats are opposing it and that it will have such a hard time in the Senate.

Again, I'm not sanguine about the federal government as the defender of my right to keep and bear arms, given that they've consistently cast themselves in the opposite role throughout history.

Even assuming the federal government is suddenly my new bestest gun rights buddy,
Strangely, I don't recall ever arguing that. What I do recall arguing is that the negative things claimed of both the National Reciprocity Bill and the Fix-NICS Bill are not actually in the Bill as was being claimed.

and assuming that states don't suddenly assert their state's rights as described in the 10th amendment
Why would they start now? Democrats don't want that by any means. They'd as soon allow for the 10th to be enforced as they would for overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

now that the federal government is acting on behalf of the citizens instead of big government, how exactly would this work in practice?
I don't recall arguing that either.

The police already have FAR too many laws to enforce.
Which will be largely unaffected by either the passage or defeat of this Bill into law.

After national concealed carry reciprocity, our police are going to be expected to know the gun laws in all fifty states and US territories?
No. All they have to know is if the person presents a photo ID which is valid for CCW. There's only, what? 13 states which are currently Vermont Carry. Everyone else has permits. This isn't a hard "problem."

what kind of mess can we expect when someone from Alaska tries to apply their local firearms customs and laws in New Jersey?
Absolutely none. As written visitors to other states would have to follow those states laws on place, method, and maybe "what gun." So if you're allowed to carry in a school in Utah, it doesn't mean you're allowed to in Ohio. ...at least not under this Bill. Yes, the individual carrier would have to know where he was and was not allowed to carry in states he visits under this Bill. That is, by some accounts, one of the shortcomings of the Bill as currently written. However, it does move the onus off of the police for knowing all the gun laws of other states. No one thinks that is reasonable, or even possible.

Whenever a new concealed carry law is enacted, the anti-gunners scream about blood in the streets as a result.
So, no difference?

It never happens, but I can definitely see police in anti-gun states shooting visitors from free states who expect their rights to be respected under national concealed carry reciprocity.
Nope. Won't happen. It didn't happen when IL was forced to let concealed carriers drive through the state packing as long as they didn't leave their car or when Virginia got, essentially, universal reciprocity. It won't happen anywhere else either.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
We really don't know the possible downsides for a new law, until it is tested in the courts.
We have a long history of States's Rights in setting concealed carry laws and I don't see that control being given up easily.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
We really don't know the possible downsides for a new law, until it is tested in the courts.
I'm not sure what you mean by "tested in the courts." But if you're referring to The Law of Unintended Consequences, then I agree. There are always unforeseen consequences. But what we do know is what is happening now. The last time I heard in New Jersey alone, there were over 100 cases of otherwise law abiding gun owners bringing their guns in and getting arrested. They face, ims, a statutory minimum of 7 years in prison, a Felony conviction, and the permanent loss of rights. More than 100 Shaneen Allen's in NJ alone, not counting the people NY jerks around for flying into the Port Authority and being laid over or misdirected. Nor does it count for any of the other places which want to screw over law abiding gun owners.

We know what happens if we don't change it.

We have a long history of States's Rights in setting concealed carry laws and I don't see that control being given up easily.
States Rights? Since when does States Rights trump enumerated civil rights? What other right do you give up under the rubric of States Rights? Do you give up your rights against warrantless search and seizure when you cross State lines? Do you give up the right to peaceably assemble or petition the government for redress because you're visiting another State? Does Utah have the authority to force you to attend LDS if you're from Wyoming? If you travel to a neighboring State are you suddenly required to testify against yourself in court?

But you are right that Democrats won't easily relinquish the power to control and infringe.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkCO

·
Registered
Joined
·
296 Posts
States Rights don't over-rule Constitutional Rights...ever! Putting a law on the books that regulates the 2nd Amendment is tactic relinquishment of that right. That is how we go to this whole mess in the first place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
It's one of the many reasons Democrats are opposing it and that it will have such a hard time in the Senate.

Strangely, I don't recall ever arguing that. What I do recall arguing is that the negative things claimed of both the National Reciprocity Bill and the Fix-NICS Bill are not actually in the Bill as was being claimed.

Why would they start now? Democrats don't want that by any means. They'd as soon allow for the 10th to be enforced as they would for overturning Wickard v. Filburn.

I don't recall arguing that either.

Which will be largely unaffected by either the passage or defeat of this Bill into law.

No. All they have to know is if the person presents a photo ID which is valid for CCW. There's only, what? 13 states which are currently Vermont Carry. Everyone else has permits. This isn't a hard "problem."

Absolutely none. As written visitors to other states would have to follow those states laws on place, method, and maybe "what gun." So if you're allowed to carry in a school in Utah, it doesn't mean you're allowed to in Ohio. ...at least not under this Bill. Yes, the individual carrier would have to know where he was and was not allowed to carry in states he visits under this Bill. That is, by some accounts, one of the shortcomings of the Bill as currently written. However, it does move the onus off of the police for knowing all the gun laws of other states. No one thinks that is reasonable, or even possible.

So, no difference?

Nope. Won't happen. It didn't happen when IL was forced to let concealed carriers drive through the state packing as long as they didn't leave their car or when Virginia got, essentially, universal reciprocity. It won't happen anywhere else either.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Could you expand on your comment that ‘Virginia got essentially universal reciprocity’? This is new to me.

Thanks,
Tom
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,839 Posts
Could you expand on your comment that ‘Virginia got essentially universal reciprocity’? This is new to me.

Thanks,
Tom
My recollection is that back prior to 2017, when I wrote this post, Virginia had expanded their laws/rules to allow pretty much anyone from another state with a CCW to carry in Virginia. Even today, Virginia honors most out-of-state permits and cops aren't shooting non-virginians with CCW.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
128 Posts
Could you expand on your comment that ‘Virginia got essentially universal reciprocity’? This is new to me.

Thanks,
Tom
Virginia honors permits from the other 49 states and DC. They also honor permits from US Territories.

On the other hand 15 Democratically controlled states and DC do not accept Virginia's permit.
 
41 - 56 of 56 Posts
Top