Jump to content

Good News About National Reciprocity!

WARFACE

By WARFACE
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

Soundguy, you said "You may be disappointed. One creates a task force that already exists. Three are under attack in courts. This latest one on Religious Liberty confers bad advice on Churches who wish to be political..."

 

Those are executive actions, not bills, which I do know about. I'm 100% behind those that are in the courts. They are excellent and he'll win them once they get through the liberal judicial swamp and to the Supreme Court. How could providing religious freedom be "bad advice" to anybody? It's the first amendment! In this case the executive order rejects the "Johnson amendment" that punished political speech for non-profit religions. churches as he promised. Very well received across Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religions in audience as link shows

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5OtFhlB4HY

 

Soundguy, you and I are opposite extremes on the subject of Trump. We're just wasting time talking past each other regarding Trump.

 

We are at opposite extremes.

 

You might like this list better... Bills trump has signed.

 

The 28 Bills That Trump Has Signed Into Law

Extending Obama-Era Policy

  • S. 544: "A bill to amend the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 to modify the termination date for the Veterans Choice Program, and for other purposes."

Modifying Existing Programs

  • H.R. 353: "Weather Research and Forecasting Innovation Act of 2017"
  • S. 442: "National Aeronautics and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017"
  • H.R. 72: "GAO Access and Oversight Act of 2017"

Repealing Obama-Era Rules And Regulations

  • H.J.Res. 67: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings arrangements established by qualified State political subdivisions for non-governmental employees"
  • H.J.Res. 43: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule submitted by Secretary of Health and Human Services relating to compliance with title X requirements by project recipients in selecting subrecipients"
  • H.J.Res. 69: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the final rule of the Department of the Interior relating to 'Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation and Closure Procedures, on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska' "
  • H.J.Res. 83: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to 'Clarification of Employer's Continuing Obligation to Make and Maintain an Accurate Record of Each Recordable Injury and Illness' "
  • S.J.Res. 34: "A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission relating to 'Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services' "
  • H.J.Res. 42: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to drug testing of unemployment compensation applicants"
  • H.J.Res. 57: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to accountability and State plans under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965"
  • H.J.Res. 58: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to teacher preparation issues"
  • H.J.Res. 37: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation"
  • H.J.Res. 44: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior relating to Bureau of Land Management regulations that establish the procedures used to prepare, revise, or amend land use plans pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976"
  • H.J.Res. 40: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007"
  • H.J.Res. 38: "Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of the Interior known as the Stream Protection Rule"
  • H.J.Res. 41: "Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to 'Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers' "

Naming Something/Siting A Memorial/Encouraging Flag Flying

  • S.J.Res. 1: "A joint resolution approving the location of a memorial to commemorate and honor the members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty in support of Operation Desert Storm or Operation Desert Shield"
  • H.R. 1362: "To name the Department of Veterans Affairs community-based outpatient clinic in Pago Pago, American Samoa, the Faleomavaega Eni Fa'aua'a Hunkin VA Clinic"
  • H.R. 609: "To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs health care center in Center Township, Butler County, Pennsylvania, as the 'Abie Abraham VA Clinic' "
  • S. 305: "Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act of 2017"

Encouraging An Agency To Try Something New

  • H.R. 321: "Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act"
  • H.R. 255: "Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act"

Personnel-Related

  • S.J.Res. 30: "A joint resolution providing for the reappointment of Steve Case as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution"
  • S.J.Res. 36: "A joint resolution providing for the appointment of Roger W. Ferguson as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution"
  • S.J.Res. 35: "A joint resolution providing for the appointment of Michael Govan as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution"
  • H.R. 1228: "To provide for the appointment of members of the Board of Directors of the Office of Compliance to replace members whose terms expire during 2017, and for other purposes"
  • S. 84: "A bill to provide for an exception to a limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
press1280 Member

press1280

Posted
Posted

Sen Mark Warner of VA, who claims to be a strong 2A supporter, openly announced his opposition to the Senate's version of the National Reciprocity bill today. The Senate bill currently has 36 sponsors, all Republicans.

 

http://www.guns.com/2017/05/04/virginia-democrat-comes-out-against-national-reciprocity/

 

While calling himself a “proud supporter of second amendment rights” the U.S. Senator whose constituency includes the National Rifle Association’s headquarters pushed back against a national concealed carry proposal.

 

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner on Wednesday slammed S. 446, a Republican-backed measure that would see concealed carry permits largely treated the same way that drivers licenses are with the respect that they would be recognized in every state. Warner met with gun violence survivors and their families on the lead up to his announcement that he could not support the bill.

 

“Virginia has determined what it deems to be appropriate concealed carry permitting standards, but neither the Commonwealth nor any other state should be subject to national laws that would override those standards and result in a race to the bottom,” he said in a statement.

 

“I’m a proud supporter of second amendment rights and will always advocate for responsible gun ownership for hunting, recreation, and self-defense,” Warner said. “But enough is enough. This tragic violence has to end. Knowing what I know today, if and when S. 446 comes before the Senate for a vote, I will oppose it in the interest of the safety of all Virginians.”

Ironically, Sen Warner's home state of VA ALREADY recognizes licenses and permits from all other states.

 

I think this basically kills any hope of getting the traditional 60 votes in the Senate. Warner had TWICE voted for similar legislation. It's now a matter of attaching it to another piece of legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
vito Member

vito

Posted
Posted

With so much of Trump's agenda stymied, the national reciprocity bill is likely a very, very low priority with the White House. One thing and one thing only will change all of this, and that is McConnell's willingness to end, once and for all, the filibuster "rule". It really shows his commitment to the nation that his concern with this Senate tradition is apparently more important than the country moving forward and away from Obama era policies. WIthout the filibuster, Trump would not need to use Executive Orders to the degree that he has done, but could get actual legislation passed by Republican majorities. We would see the wall begun tax reform passed, Obamacare repealed and replaced, and likely national reciprocity enacted into law.

 

Judging by states refusing to honor immigration law, and directly opposing the Federal government on these issues, I think it more than likely that even if we get national reciprocity, states like NY and NJ, and cities like NYC would refuse to accept the new law. I could see local police being ordered to enforce local law and arresting those caught with a concealed firearm, even if such is specifically legalized under the Federal act. Who among us has the resources to pursue a fight in Federal court, post a high bond amount, and risk at least temporary incarceration as well as certain loss of the firearm. I'll admit that even if the national reciprocity gets to be law, I might wait to see other "test cases" before taking the risk of visiting those states that I now try my best to totally avoid. Although I was born and raised in NYC, and although my wife totally disagrees with my stance, I hope never to return there, even for a visit, until I can actually go there with my 2nd Amendment rights intact and well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

This is interesting--GOA's Chairman of the Board, Jim Macy, predicts that the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) will pass the House of Representatives in 4-6 weeks.

 

http://www.oaoa.com/news/local/article_67e4fd2a-8c3e-11e7-be10-fbfbf826a2dd.html?mode=jqm

 

I'm curious what gives him this level of confidence.

 

He does admit that the greater challenge lies in the Senate, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
C0untZer0 Member

C0untZer0

Posted
Posted
Judging by states refusing to honor immigration law, and directly opposing the Federal government on these issues, I think it more than likely that even if we get national reciprocity, states like NY and NJ, and cities like NYC would refuse to accept the new law

 

 

 

You would think that enforcing existing immigration laws wouldn't be that difficult since illegal immigration is by definition - illegal.

 

If the executive branch can't even enforce existing laws, due to resistance from the left - national reciprocity will never happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lou Member

Lou

Posted
Posted

 

Judging by states refusing to honor immigration law, and directly opposing the Federal government on these issues, I think it more than likely that even if we get national reciprocity, states like NY and NJ, and cities like NYC would refuse to accept the new law

 

 

You would think that enforcing existing immigration laws wouldn't be that difficult since illegal immigration is by definition - illegal.

 

If the executive branch can't even enforce existing laws, due to resistance from the left - national reciprocity will never happen.

And I remember multiple people saying that Illinois would never pass a Carry bill yet here we are.

 

Never say never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RoadyRunner Member

RoadyRunner

Posted
Posted
This is interesting--GOA's Chairman of the Board, Jim Macy, predicts that the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) will pass the House of Representatives in 4-6 weeks.http://www.oaoa.com/news/local/article_67e4fd2a-8c3e-11e7-be10-fbfbf826a2dd.html?mode=jqm

I'm curious what gives him this level of confidence.

He does admit that the greater challenge lies in the Senate, however.

 

The article also says that it would 'allow handguns on federally owned lands'... (presumably by permit holders).

 

Wouldn't post offices qualify as 'federally owned lands'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Wouldn't post offices qualify as 'federally owned lands'?

I presume they would, but the text of the bill is very specific with respect to the categories of federal land where handguns would be allowed. Post office property is not on that list:

 

(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection ( a ) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

 

( A ) A unit of the National Park System.

 

( B ) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

 

( C ) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

 

( D ) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

 

( E ) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gamma Member

Gamma

Posted
Posted

 

Wouldn't post offices qualify as 'federally owned lands'?

I presume they would, but the text of the bill is very specific with respect to the categories of federal land where handguns would be allowed. Post office property is not on that list:

 

(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection ( a ) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

 

( A ) A unit of the National Park System.

 

( B ) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

 

( C ) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

 

( D ) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

 

( E ) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

 

They need to just add a subsection to the existing federal law that regulates possession of firearms on federal property. It prohibits possession for other than "lawful purposes". All the federal bans like the Post Office, ACE land etc devolve from an Attorney General's opinion, backed up by court decisions, that lawful concealed carry is not a "lawful purpose" under that act.

 

So what should be done is simply express that lawful concealed carry by private citizens is a "lawful purpose".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Gamma Member

Gamma

Posted
Posted

With so much of Trump's agenda stymied, the national reciprocity bill is likely a very, very low priority with the White House.

I think they would do well by making it a very high priority. Gun owners are just not going to accept failure to get something. The Republican party is going to cease to exist if they can't deliver anything for one of their strongest core constituencies.

 

Judging by states refusing to honor immigration law, and directly opposing the Federal government on these issues, I think it more than likely that even if we get national reciprocity, states like NY and NJ, and cities like NYC would refuse to accept the new law. I could see local police being ordered to enforce local law and arresting those caught with a concealed firearm, even if such is specifically legalized under the Federal act. Who among us has the resources to pursue a fight in Federal court, post a high bond amount, and risk at least temporary incarceration as well as certain loss of the firearm.

If a state or locality is violating Federal law, then the Federal DOJ should be taking up for the aggrieved party, especially with a friendly administration in office.

 

There may be bluster but nothing of the sort that you propose will happen, for one simple reason. LEOSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RonOglesby - Now in Texas Member

RonOglesby - Now in Texas

Posted
Posted

 

Have been waiting for one of the bills to start. Great news. Thanks for posting this.

 

They will bury it. 50% of Rs are whinny little scared jerks that really believe a lot of what the National Ds do. That dog wont hunt. They will string it along a little (to give them some pro-gun check marks) but in reality THEY WANT these divisive issues. having them is good for votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

I still believe this bill will pass the House at some point but the Senate remains a HUGE hurdle.

 

Regardless, for anyone who is interested in watching the markup discussion at the House Judiciary Committee, here's the live streaming link. I believe it starts at 10 am (EST).

 

https://youtu.be/RmkRZvw7yFw

 

Edit: If that link doesn't work, try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmkRZvw7yFw

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davey Member

Davey

Posted
Posted

Attempted amendments included the removal of magazines and ammunition from the definition of "handgun" (this would have led to magazine bans in some states), members of congress being added to the definition of "persons", and an amendment that would have made it so that the only out of state permits recognized would be those of the home state of the person carrying.

 

All three were defeated.

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...