Jump to content

HR 38 Reciprocity at RISK (HINT: fix-NICS)

capotwosix

By capotwosix
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

NRA Article

 

State Attorneys General Back National Reciprocity

 

AGs: Will not result in an increased risk of crime.

 

Fairfax, Va.— Today, H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, gained support from a coalition of America’s highest-ranking law enforcement officers. Twenty-four* attorneys general from across the country signed a letter spearheaded by Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley supporting this common sense legislation.

 

The additional support for Concealed Carry Reciprocity follows House Judiciary Committee approval of H.R. 38. A full House vote is expected soon.

 

“America’s highest-ranking law enforcement officers understand that law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines without fear of unknowingly breaking the law. The NRA applauds these attorneys general for supporting this important legislation,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action.

 

The letter states that H.R. 38 is a much-needed solution to a problem facing gun owners and poses no threat to public safety. “The exercise of Congress’s power is particularly warranted in this case because too many states refuse to allow law-abiding visitors to carry concealed firearms. These states leave people without any real option for self-defense. Allowing concealed carry across state lines will not result in an increased risk of crime, as those states that have reciprocal concealed-carry agreements have not encountered any significant safety issues.”

 

H.R. 38 would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state laws that make it difficult for law-abiding gun owners to travel across the country with their firearms for personal protection. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act affirms that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed firearms in one state can carry in other states that allow residents to do so.

 

A copy of the letter signed by attorneys general from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma*, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming can be found here.

 

 

*Please note: an earlier version of this press release said 23 attorneys general and has since been updated with the recent addition of the Oklahoma attorney general who signed on after the original letter was posted

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20171201/state-attorneys-general-back-national-reciprocity

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

 

ISRA and IC, do you have a position on "the FIX NICS Bill?" Can you please confirm it's bill number? I'm still not certain what the bill number is that's be debated. Please help. Thank you

My understanding is FIX NICS is going to be amended to include all kinds of conditions to disqualify gun purchasers.

 

I share that concern. I'm hoping the example of Obama's executive order regarding Veteran's Administration and Trump's executive order to reverse it is fresh in the NRA's and our representatives' minds.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cybermgk Member

cybermgk

Posted
Posted

 

ISRA and IC, do you have a position on "the FIX NICS Bill?" Can you please confirm it's bill number? I'm still not certain what the bill number is that's be debated. Please help. Thank you

My understanding is FIX NICS is going to be amended to include all kinds of conditions to disqualify gun purchasers.

 

'understanding'? Are you just prognosticating, or is that based on something concrete?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
capotwosix Member

capotwosix

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

 

ISRA and IC, do you have a position on "the FIX NICS Bill?" Can you please confirm it's bill number? I'm still not certain what the bill number is that's be debated. Please help. Thank you

My understanding is FIX NICS is going to be amended to include all kinds of conditions to disqualify gun purchasers.
I share that concern. I'm hoping the example of Obama's executive order regarding Veteran's Administration and Trump's executive order to reverse it is fresh in the NRA's and our representatives' minds.

As an NRA member I'm pretty ticked they're pushing so hard without making their members aware of 4474 possibly being attached to HR38. Just joined GOA two days ago as their stance is truly "no compromise, shall not be infringed" where the NRA plays politics; fills their pockets. I'm not jumping ship with the NRA just yet, but they've let us down before.

 

The problem is HR38 is such a popular bill that people may be overlooking how dangerous 4474 is to all gun owners. This is exactly what the Dems and RINOS are counting on. They think gun owners are fools and don't know any better. Don't forget their end goal is total confiscation. Before you say "paranoid", do some research. The facts are out there. Feinsteins quote about getting 51 votes is a good reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDW Member

JDW

Posted
Posted

Good morning folks,

 

I've spent a few hours blowing up the phones of all the people I know who are much more in the loop than I am. The conclusion I came away with is pretty cut and dry. HR4477 is a full on old fashioned gun grab with lots of Sara Brady-ish style ideas in it. For those who are unaware of Mrs. Brady's views on taking guns away from citizens, I urge you to do some reading. The mere fact that Chuck and Nancy signed off on it speaks volumes.

One of my calls was the to the NRA-ILA, to hear with my own ears that they are indeed supporting this bill. The explanation the gentleman gave me for their backing of HR4477 was so ill informed, I actually felt bad for him. I couldn't get angry with him, he's just doing his job. It is bothersome that NRA-ILA's phone reps are not more well versed in what they speak about.

 

If these two bills are combined, and manage to pass, our best and last hope is that President Trump veto's it. Speaking of which, i was a frequent donor to the Trump Campaign. I wrote him a a hand written letter a month or so back. This past weekend, I received a letter back from him. Reading that letter has me convinced that he's on our side all the way. Of course, politics being what they are today, (in a constant state of flux) I have no way of knowing what will ultimately happen. In closing, essentially everything Tim (MAC) alerted us to last evening is 100% spot on. That's what i verified this morning.

 

I called and wrote my reps already

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

JDW, can you point to the specific text in H.R. 4477 that imposes new restrictions on end-purchasers and owners of firearms?

Ive read it and only see reporting requirements and incentives for federal agencies and states to comply with existing requirements. The new restrictions may very well be in the current bill, but they arent obvious to me.

Edited to add: You referenced H.R. 4474. Is that a typo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

ISRA and IC, do you have a position on "the FIX NICS Bill?" Can you please confirm it's bill number? I'm still not certain what the bill number is that's be debated. Please help. Thank you

 

We haven't taken a position on H.R. 4477.

 

 

 

JDW, can you point to the specific text in H.R. 4477 that imposes new restrictions on end-purchasers and owners of firearms?

 

Ive read it and only see reporting requirements and incentives for federal agencies and states to comply with existing requirements. The new restrictions may very well be in the current bill, but they arent obvious to me.

 

Edited to add: You referenced H.R. 4474. Is that a typo?

 

Yes, it would be helpful if those who so strongly oppose the bill would provide specific reasons with reference to the actual language. I understand emotion can sometimes run high, but no one should be expected to form an opinion on emotion alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
capotwosix Member

capotwosix

Posted
  • Author
Posted

JDW, sorry for the 4474 glitch—that was a different poster.

I'm referring to Fix NICS if 4474 is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JDW Member

JDW

Posted
Posted

JDW, can you point to the specific text in H.R. 4477 that imposes new restrictions on end-purchasers and owners of firearms?

 

Ive read it and only see reporting requirements and incentives for federal agencies and states to comply with existing requirements. The new restrictions may very well be in the current bill, but they arent obvious to me.

 

Edited to add: You referenced H.R. 4474. Is that a typo?

 

 

First, yes, that was an obvious typo. Sorry about that. Second, no I can not point you to any specific text, (at this time) but i may be able to soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Second, no I can not point you to any specific text, (at this time) but i may be able to soon.

 

 

Thank you. I'm very interested in seeing and understanding the analysis.

 

I've learned through the years to never (or at least rarely) take such claims at face value without doing some level of independent analysis, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
capotwosix Member

capotwosix

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Second, no I can not point you to any specific text, (at this time) but i may be able to soon.

 

Thank you. I'm very interested in seeing and understanding the analysis.

 

I've learned through the years to never (or at least rarely) take such claims at face value without doing some level of independent analysis, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

All the videos in this thread have some really good information from reliable sources that you can use to crosscheck from individual research. You'll have to do some digging through google seeing as they're extremely left and hide/burry pro 2A or general conservative ideals.

 

Basically it boils down to, have you lived a perfect life, never been in trouble, never seen a doctor for anything other than a checkup? Otherwise it could cause you to be denied your rights, put on a 60 day waiting period to buy a firearm while they "investigate", or even have your firearms confiscated. There is gun control plain and simple. I realize HR38 is popular and I want it too, but not at the cost of fix nics. Everyone's made mistakes and loosing or being denied of your firearms because of them is not good for anyone. I'm contacted reps and stated to support HR38 and oppose fix nics. Have them voted on seperatly or no deal. Anything Schumer, Pelosi and co. support is very bad. Now is the time to be on the offensive and not compromising. History shows pro2A supporters have never benifited from any form of compromise. Just my two cents, but I encourage everyone to do their research and make an informed opinion on what's important. Time is of the essence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted
All the videos in this thread have some really good information from reliable sources that you can use to crosscheck from individual research. You'll have to do some digging through google seeing as they're extremely left and hide/burry pro 2A or general conservative ideals.

 

 

I don't have an hour+ to watch the MAC video.

 

I did quickly scrub the video in the OP and the "Gun Gripes" video. Basically the argument is this: "More people will be denied, so the bill is bad."

 

True: More prohibited persons will be captured in the NICS database. That's the point--to ensure NICS captures more names of people that are already prohibited by Federal law. That's the bill, pure and simple.

 

We can argue the efficacy of background checks "until the cows come home." But as far as I can tell, this bill doesn't change much other than encouraging compliance with the existing framework.

 

Basically it boils down to, have you lived a perfect life, never been in trouble, never seen a doctor for anything other than a checkup? Otherwise it could cause you to be denied your rights, put on a 60 day waiting period to buy a firearm while they "investigate", or even have your firearms confiscated. .

 

 

Based on my reading of the bills, if the GCA (as currently amended) and NICS don't already do this, then the proposed bill won't do this, either. Please explain your logic. (Would prefer to hear from you--please don't point me toward more videos.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
capotwosix Member

capotwosix

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@kwc The fix nics is the Brady bill. The entire nics system removes due process. Ever had legal trouble? Even if someone's filed a report against you, without you knowing. Taking an anti-depressant prescribed from your doctor because the loss of a family member, or just getting through a rough patch in general? Prescbed medication for ADHD? Any type of domestic dispute no matter how far back? They can claim you mental defective or a domestic/violent criminal without due process. Also false positives causing you to wait 60 days.

 

Former military who seek help for PTSD will get flagged.

 

I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed" and removing someone's right to own a firearm without due process is a problem. National reciprocity was off the books since Vegas and out of no where it appears, the last second they try to sneak in fix nics with the backing of rinos, pelosi and schumer, and feinstein.

 

From GOA: https://gunowners.org/alert11172017.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

@kwc The fix nics is the Brady bill. The entire nics system removes due process. Ever had legal trouble? Even if someone's filed a report against you, without you knowing. Taking an anti-depressant prescribed from your doctor because the loss of a family member, or just getting through a rough patch in general? Prescbed medication for ADHD? Any type of domestic dispute no matter how far back? They can claim you mental defective or a domestic/violent criminal without due process. Also false positives causing you to wait 60 days.

 

I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed" and removing someone's right to own a firearm without due process is a problem. National reciprocity was off the books since Vegas and out of no where it appears, the last second they try to sneak in fix nics with the backing of rinos, pelosi and schumer, and feinstein.

 

From GOA: https://gunowners.org/alert11172017.htm

Your argument and the GOA argument, then, is that NICS should be repealed. No argument here, just a suggestion that you look at the reality that NICS isn't going anywhere in the near future. No one in Congress is actively trying to accomplish that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

 

I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed" and removing someone's right to own a firearm without due process is a problem.

 

No argument from me on this point! Due process is critical, and that is, in many cases, missing from NICS.

 

Agree with mauserme's statement above--the reality is that NICS isn't going away anytime soon.

 

I could still be swayed otherwise, but don't currently believe some minor adjustments around the edges of an existing program are terrible enough to completely throw away the chance at achieving National Reciprocity.

 

IMHO, keeping H.R. 4477 and H.R. 38 separate will result in passage of H.R. 4477 through both chambers. H.R. 38 will fail in the Senate by itself (and may very well fail even with H.R. 4477 attached.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mauserme Member

mauserme

Posted
Posted

 

I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed" and removing someone's right to own a firearm without due process is a problem.

No argument from me on this point! Due process is critical, and that is, in many cases, missing from NICS.

 

Agree with mauserme's statement above--the reality is that NICS isn't going away anytime soon.

 

I could still be swayed otherwise, but don't currently believe some minor adjustments around the edges of an existing program are terrible enough to completely throw away the chance at achieving National Reciprocity.

 

IMHO, keeping H.R. 4477 and H.R. 38 separate will result in passage of H.R. 4477 through both chambers. H.R. 38 will fail in the Senate by itself (and may very well fail even with H.R. 4477 attached.)

 

In any case, you're going to get "Fix NICS" regardless.

 

I share your concerns.

 

The "better to forego reciprocity than accept both" argument ignores the forth possibility - Congress is going to address the NICS omissions with or without reciprocity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

 

I'm a firm believer in "shall not be infringed" and removing someone's right to own a firearm without due process is a problem.

No argument from me on this point! Due process is critical, and that is, in many cases, missing from NICS.

 

Agree with mauserme's statement above--the reality is that NICS isn't going away anytime soon.

 

I could still be swayed otherwise, but don't currently believe some minor adjustments around the edges of an existing program are terrible enough to completely throw away the chance at achieving National Reciprocity.

 

IMHO, keeping H.R. 4477 and H.R. 38 separate will result in passage of H.R. 4477 through both chambers. H.R. 38 will fail in the Senate by itself (and may very well fail even with H.R. 4477 attached.)

 

Agreed. Any declared felony or mental illness without due process is unconstitutional. That's why I said in #37, "I'm hoping the example of Obama's executive order regarding Veteran's Administration and Trump's executive order to reverse it is fresh in the NRA's and our representatives' minds." Obama's executive order declared a Veteran, "mentally incompetent" if they just needed help understanding VA documentation. Trump reversed that executive order in shortly after Inauguration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Looks like the House combined the two bills and will vote on them as a package.

 

https://amp.businessinsider.com/chris-murphy-concealed-carry-bill-dead-on-arrival-in-the-senate-2017-12

 

Senator Chris Murphy insists this is dead on arrival in the Senate.

 

ETA: Sen Murphy wants these bills to be independent in the Senate. Any idea why? Of course: he knows Fix NICS will pass alone, and National Reciprocity will fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...