Good News About National Reciprocity!

[TomKoz]

Oh you WILL bend over. For one thing or another, and in one way or another, Madigan will see to it that you bend over!!

[kwc]

 

 

It does not say that states must recognize nonresident permits issued to its own residents of the state. That would probably be overstepping Federal authority. ​

 

The bill's sponsor made his intent clear in an interview yesterday. Read this: http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-reciprocity-bill-will-apply-non-resident-gun-carry-permits/

 

 

“My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson said.

 

Many gun owners in states that use a “may issue” permitting process, such as California or New Jersey, are not able to obtain concealed carry permits from their home state—even if they’ve passed a background check and met the training requirements—since the final decision in those states is left at the discretion of government officials. However, those same gun owners may be able to obtain a non-resident permit from a state with different gun laws. Under Hudson’s proposal, that permit would allow them to carry across the country—including in their home state.

 

[Quiet Observer]

kwc,

 

Thanks very much for the information . I hope that the language of the bill is amended to specifically state that. I think that the original language could make one subject to arrest and prosecution in a hostile state. Even if cleared, there would still be a lot of hassle and time wasted.

 

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights. I will leave that debate for someone else. For now, though, things are looking better.

[Just some guy]

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22Rep+Davis,+Rodney%22%5D,%22cosponsor-state%22:%22Indiana%22%7D&pageSort=alphaByState

[kwc]

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights.

 

Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.

[Quiet Observer]

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22Rep+Davis,+Rodney%22%5D,%22cosponsor-state%22:%22Indiana%22%7D&pageSort=alphaByState

 

Five co-sponsors, so far, all from Indiana. It is early; there will be more.

[kwc]

 

Here's a link to follow the bill (Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017):

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?q=%7B%22search%22:%5B%22Rep+Davis,+Rodney%22%5D,%22cosponsor-state%22:%22Indiana%22%7D&pageSort=alphaByState

 

Five co-sponsors, so far, all from Indiana. It is early; there will be more.

 

 

No, there are 116 co-sponsors. You need to uncheck "Indiana."

[Quiet Observer]

Thanks,

 

I was going by what I saw posted on the page from the link above. I was not familiar with the site.

Here is the link without any state checked. Maybe this will help others new to that site.

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/cosponsors?pageSort=alphaByState&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rep+Davis%2C+Rodney%22%5D%7D

[RoadyRunner]

 

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights.

 

Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.

I agree.

 

However, I'm happy to see my rep has signed onto it...

[Gamma]

 

If passed, I think that the law will be challenged in court by Attorney's General of several hostile states on the basis of conflicting with states' rights.

Oh, I have no doubt this will be challenged--assuming it passes.

 

Which is why I dislike the carry in home state on a non-res permit part, as I think that will likely fail in the courts and might well bring down the whole thing. Although... did any state litigate against LEOSA? That allowed LEO's to carry in their home states even if their state law or dept policies didn't allow for it... so there is that.

[MrTriple]

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.

[kwc]

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged.

 

My prediction--The House will easily pass this bill. But then one of two things will happen:

 

1. It will flounder until 2018, when the GOP increases its numbers in the Senate, and will be reintroduced in the next Congress; or

 

2. It will be stripped down to remove some of the controversial provisions, and tacked onto another must-pass and popular bill.

 

Let's give it a few months and see where this goes.

 

 

[kwc]

The Senate Majority Leader has pretty much ruled out the possibility of using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster rule for SCOTUS appointees. As a result, 60 votes are still required to move forward with SCOTUS confirmations AND to proceed to a vote on all legislative actions in the Senate.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/316583-mcconnell-all-but-rules-out-filibuster-change

[lockman]

If the nuclear option is what is required to get the job done he would be a fool not to do it. After all Harry changed the rules. Let's get back to reality, if it only takes 51% to change this rule the 60% limit is illusory.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[kwc]

If the nuclear option is what is required to get the job done he would be a fool not to do it. After all Harry changed the rules. Let's get back to reality, if it only takes 51% to change this rule the 60% limit is illusory.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Reid didn't nuke the filibuster rule for legislative actions, only for non-SCOTUS federal appointments.

 

McConnell's view is that it takes 67% agreement to change a rule.

[C0untZer0]

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.

 

 

The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

[tkroenlein]

The Senate Majority Leader has pretty much ruled out the possibility of using the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote filibuster rule for SCOTUS appointees. As a result, 60 votes are still required to move forward with SCOTUS confirmations AND to proceed to a vote on all legislative actions in the Senate.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/316583-mcconnell-all-but-rules-out-filibuster-change

Good.

[MrTriple]

 

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.

 

The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.

[soundguy]

 

 

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.

The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.

 

 

States don't have rights.

People do.

[chislinger]

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority.

[kwc]

There's a big difference between (1) nuking the filibuster rules for judicial appointments and (2) nuking the filibuster rules for legislation. IMHO the latter opens up a fresh can of worms for many years to come. If the Democrats take control of the Senate, their legislative agenda would be unstoppable.

[tkroenlein]

 

 

 

 

This will be passed, I guarantee you it will, and possibly be challenged. We're forgetting that with Trump as president the SCOTUS is hopefully going to become more pro-gun in its outlook, and all it'll take is a few good 2A cases and the gun control movement will become obsolete (not an bad thing at all). They might be just smart enough to realize that the next SCOTUS justice that'll need to be replaced will be one of the liberal stalwarts (Ginsberg, Kennedy, or Justice Ice Cream) and that'll permanently shift the court in a pro-gun direction. If that occurs in conjunction with a SCOTUS challenge to a reciprocity law...well, we can predict the outcome.

 

 

The court could also be be more pro "State's Powers" and rule against it

 

But state's rights ends when they interfere with our constitutional rights.

 

 

 

 

States don't have rights.

People do.

You get an Amen from me for this.

 

They have powers.

[C0untZer0]

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority.

 

 

There is this pattern which the Republicans keep falling into, where they refrain from doing something because they think it will hurt the country - like Nixon refraining from contesting his loss to Kennedy even though Old Man Daley used Chicago-style voter fraud to hand Kennedy the election. Nixon declined to contest the election because he feared it would create a constitutional crisis, tear the country apart and lead to chaos. We've seen that Democrats did not follow suit and they don't care one wit about the Constitution. They only care about getting in power and changing America to their liking, which means twisting the constitution or simply gutting it, as they did in Illinois with their violations of the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever the Republicans refrain from doing now for posterity's sake is exactly what will be shoved down their throats 4 or 8 years from now.

[OldMarineVet]

 

There is no advantage not to invoke the nuclear option, it can only hurt us because the Democrats already said they'd invoke it to push Hillary's picks through when they thought she'd win and they'd have a Senate majority.

 

 

There is this pattern which the Republicans keep falling into, where they refrain from doing something because they think it will hurt the country - like Nixon refraining from contesting his loss to Kennedy even though Old Man Daley used Chicago-style voter fraud to hand Kennedy the election. Nixon declined to contest the election because he feared it would create a constitutional crisis, tear the country apart and lead to chaos. We've seen that Democrats did not follow suit and they don't care one wit about the Constitution. They only care about getting in power and changing America to their liking, which means twisting the constitution or simply gutting it, as they did in Illinois with their violations of the Second Amendment.

 

Whatever the Republicans refrain from doing now for posterity's sake is exactly what will be shoved down their throats 4 or 8 years from now.

 

Agreed

[spec5]

There is no advantage to saying to whether or not you will invoke the nuclear option. Why put your cards on the table? The only plan is to get a good pro second amendment jurist appointed. The other side says they will filibuster and don't even know who they are going to filibuster. Why is it that Senator McConnell has to let us know what he will do other than to say the nominee will get enough votes to be appointed to SCOTUS nuclear option or not.

[vern]

Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready for an executive order on the making us all constitutional carry and no force of law for banned places. That's my dream!!

[Plinkermostly]

Maybe something unless it is a real assault weapon . . . .

[gangrel]

Don't know about the rest of you but I am ready for an executive order on the making us all constitutional carry and no force of law for banned places. That's my dream!!

I prefer this be done by some means that would preclude it being undone 4-8 years from now with the stroke of a pen.

[vern]

Of course you are right

[vern]

I hope to do some traveling fairly soon and would like for this to be cleared up before then