Jump to content


Photo

Good News About National Reciprocity!


  • Please log in to reply
424 replies to this topic

#331 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:10 AM

The fact that some of the anti's that actually understand the constitution are happy about this should concern all of us.  

 

Very true, they recognize that strategically this may come back to haunt us.



#332 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,898 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:22 AM

The Commerce Clause has been used and abused many times in the past, and is referenced in ACA, the GFSZA, and others. I am not thrilled about it and wish reliance upon the 2A and 14A were the primary justifications.

 

The Ds won't hesitate to use the Commerce Clause again, potentially to further restrict rights protected by the 2A, whether H.R. 38 passes or not. IMHO this bill doesn't open Pandora's box in that regard. Overall adverse impact is minimal. I'll live with it.

 

As for Fix NICS, I love the way Mr. Cole expresses his sentiments:

 

http://blackmanwitha...the-purity-test

 

 

.

 

+1

 

This is *exactly* where I am at.

 

Keep working to get Illinois to 'Constitutional Carry' and we will be able to carry without a permit across the entire USA under this bill. That's a major part of the ideal we are seeking.

 

I see this bill as a positive step. Nothing more than that. I hope it passes...


IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#333 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 11:32 AM

I continue to stand with the NRA (see below) Yesterday's passage of H.R. 38 is good news to me. United we stand, divided we fall.
========================================

House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Wednesday, December 6, 2017


Fairfax, Va.—The National Rifle Association applauded the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday for passing the most far-reaching expansion of self-defense rights in modern American history. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 passed with bipartisan support in a 231-198 vote.

“This vote marks a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is the culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines.”

The bill, H.R. 38, ensures that those Americans who can legally carry a concealed firearm in one state will legally be able to do so in every other state. It eliminates the confusing patchwork of state laws that have ensnared otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and have forced law enforcement to waste their precious time and resources enforcing laws that don’t do anything to reduce violent crime.

The bill also makes improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. All Americans, including law-abiding gun owners, agree that violent criminals should not have legal access to firearms. However, the system is only as good as its records, and recent events have shown that sometimes the correct information is not entered into the system. This bill incentivizes states and government agencies to update the NICS with legitimate records of prohibited persons.

Additionally, the bill creates an expedited process for removing records that are erroneously put in the system. Currently, when a person discovers they have been wrongly added to the NICS, it can take up to a year to get their name removed. This bill requires a response to an appeal within 60 days.

“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law. We now call on the Senate to take up and pass this critical legislation,” Cox concluded.

The National Rifle Association would especially like to thank Rep. Richard Hudson, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise for their extraordinary efforts to pass this important legislation.​

https://www.nraila.o...rry-reciprocity

#334 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,175 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:19 PM

The fact that some of the anti's that actually understand the constitution are happy about this should concern all of us.  

The antis will try to pass anti-gun laws regardless of this passing or not. This doesn't suddenly enable them.

If you oppose federal laws expanding gun rights you ensure that future federal gun laws will only restrict gun rights.

Edited by chislinger, 07 December 2017 - 12:19 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#335 Nakano

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Joined: 25-May 07

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:20 PM

Hoping this passes so I can get a non-IL CC permit.



#336 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 03:31 PM

Frankly speaking, unless/until the courts rule in our favor (see Culp and Meyers), this is the only way most nonresidents can ever expect to carry a concealed firearm in Illinois.

Edited by kwc, 07 December 2017 - 07:29 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#337 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:22 PM

I've even seen some left wing pages excited about this passing because they can use it to ban concealed carry across the country when they regain control in the future.

That's delusional. LEOSA didn't give them that power nor will this bill give them any power to do so.

Edited by Gamma, 07 December 2017 - 05:23 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#338 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,861 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:24 PM

 

The fact that some of the anti's that actually understand the constitution are happy about this should concern all of us.  

The antis will try to pass anti-gun laws regardless of this passing or not. This doesn't suddenly enable them.

If you oppose federal laws expanding gun rights you ensure that future federal gun laws will only restrict gun rights.

 

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.  

 

Let me ask you a question.  If the GOP is as pro gun as we all like to believe, why haven't we seen further expansions of gun rights?  

 

The states were designed to be set up as mini experiments in government.  Ideas that were popular enough for most of the states would then either be codified federally into law, or if popular enough, amending the bill of rights to include it.  

 

Concealed carry is lawful, in some form, across all 50 states.  That should indicate that the idea is popular enough for a constitutional amendment making it lawful across all of the states.  

 

By using a vehicle (commerce clause), which is ALWAYS used by both sides of the aisle to ram more federal power down our throats, and increase the size and power of the federal government, is just going to do the opposite of what we all hope.  

 

So everyone can cheer this on, raise a toast if this passes, but when democrats eventually take back control, we're all going to be regretting the day we celebrated.  

 

My guess as to what's going to happen:  1.  It dies in the senate.  2.  It passes, but significantly changed.  3.  Passes as is, is signed into law, and then the blue states start lighting up the courts with lawsuits, which can lead to forcing SCOTUS into addressing carry outside of the home, which wasn't addressed in Heller or McDonald.  Which way would Kennedy swing on this one?  4.  It passes, somehow is able to make it through court challenges, and then when democrats find themselves in a majority position, they use it exactly as these anti lawyers are saying and we lose concealed carry nationally, ultimately forcing SCOTUS to address it at that point, which could be 15 years down the road when we don't know what the makeup of the court will look like.  

 

It's time for a constitutional amendment to ensure we don't ultimately get screwed by this down the road.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#339 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:26 PM

Hoping this passes so I can get a non-IL CC permit.

I suspect that in-state carry for residents might be what is given away, if a compromise is needed.

If there is a poison pill in the bill, that is likely it as well as I fear the courts would use that to throw it out. I'd feel safer if it only affected people outside their home states. But I understand the sentiment.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#340 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:29 PM

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.

It doesn't give them any power to do so that they don't already have.

Despite our little victory here in Illinois, the courts are not going to save firearms rights, it's going to have to be done politically. And it's mind numbing the number of people who are flipping out over what will be a big win for firearms rights in the political realm.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#341 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,861 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:30 PM

 

I've even seen some left wing pages excited about this passing because they can use it to ban concealed carry across the country when they regain control in the future.

That's delusional. LEOSA didn't give them that power nor will this bill give them any power to do so.

 

Are we the police, or do we have police powers?  

 

LEOSA specifically covers "the kings men", this one is specific to "the people".  

 

Comparing national reciprocity with anything related to the police is a poor attempt at making an analogy.  

 

Constitutional amendment is what is needed to finally straighten this crap out.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#342 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:31 PM

 

 

The fact that some of the anti's that actually understand the constitution are happy about this should concern all of us.  

The antis will try to pass anti-gun laws regardless of this passing or not. This doesn't suddenly enable them.

If you oppose federal laws expanding gun rights you ensure that future federal gun laws will only restrict gun rights.

 

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.  

 

Let me ask you a question.  If the GOP is as pro gun as we all like to believe, why haven't we seen further expansions of gun rights?  

 

The states were designed to be set up as mini experiments in government.  Ideas that were popular enough for most of the states would then either be codified federally into law, or if popular enough, amending the bill of rights to include it.  

 

Concealed carry is lawful, in some form, across all 50 states.  That should indicate that the idea is popular enough for a constitutional amendment making it lawful across all of the states.  

 

By using a vehicle (commerce clause), which is ALWAYS used by both sides of the aisle to ram more federal power down our throats, and increase the size and power of the federal government, is just going to do the opposite of what we all hope.  

 

So everyone can cheer this on, raise a toast if this passes, but when democrats eventually take back control, we're all going to be regretting the day we celebrated.  

 

My guess as to what's going to happen:  1.  It dies in the senate.  2.  It passes, but significantly changed.  3.  Passes as is, is signed into law, and then the blue states start lighting up the courts with lawsuits, which can lead to forcing SCOTUS into addressing carry outside of the home, which wasn't addressed in Heller or McDonald.  Which way would Kennedy swing on this one?  4.  It passes, somehow is able to make it through court challenges, and then when democrats find themselves in a majority position, they use it exactly as these anti lawyers are saying and we lose concealed carry nationally, ultimately forcing SCOTUS to address it at that point, which could be 15 years down the road when we don't know what the makeup of the court will look like.  

 

It's time for a constitutional amendment to ensure we don't ultimately get screwed by this down the road.  

 

 

Or, it passes, blue states create a torrent of nuisance laws that won't hold up to legal scrutiny but clog our court systems long enough for a conservative SCOTUS to weigh in.  That assumes a lot, but it's possible.


Edited by gearsmithy, 07 December 2017 - 05:32 PM.


#343 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

Passes as is, is signed into law, and then the blue states start lighting up the courts with lawsuits, which can lead to forcing SCOTUS into addressing carry outside of the home, which wasn't addressed in Heller or McDonald.  Which way would Kennedy swing on this one?  4.  It passes, somehow is able to make it through court challenges, and then when democrats find themselves in a majority position, they use it exactly as these anti lawyers are saying and we lose concealed carry nationally, ultimately forcing SCOTUS to address it at that point, which could be 15 years down the road when we don't know what the makeup of the court will look like.

One of the beauties of this law is it's really not a 2A law. I mean it is in practical effect, but the legal justification isn't. The foundation was already laid with gay marriage etc.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#344 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

either way the blue state sissies won't go down without a fight, look at the temper tantrum that they're still throwing over Trump



#345 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,861 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:34 PM

I guess the 4 lawyers I personally know and have discussed this with, all don't know what they're talking about lol.  One's an anti, one doesn't care, and the other two are pro gun.  They all magically have the same opinion of how this could, and more than likely will be used by future democrat controlled chambers of congress and the presidency.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#346 gearsmithy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 959 posts
  • Joined: 23-May 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:37 PM

I guess the 4 lawyers I personally know and have discussed this with, all don't know what they're talking about lol.  One's an anti, one doesn't care, and the other two are pro gun.  They all magically have the same opinion of how this could, and more than likely will be used by future democrat controlled chambers of congress and the presidency.  

 

I wonder who's idea it was to base this on the commerce clause?



#347 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:42 PM

I've even seen some left wing pages excited about this passing because they can use it to ban concealed carry across the country when they regain control in the future.

That's delusional. LEOSA didn't give them that power nor will this bill give them any power to do so.

Are we the police, or do we have police powers?  
 
LEOSA specifically covers "the kings men", this one is specific to "the people".  
 
Comparing national reciprocity with anything related to the police is a poor attempt at making an analogy.  
 
Constitutional amendment is what is needed to finally straighten this crap out.

Retired LEO's have zero, zip, nada police powers especially in some far-off locality. A retired LEO from Illinois has no special legal rights in Hawaii or the Virgin Islands, but he can concealed carry there thanks to Congress directing those jurisdictions to allow it.

The comparision is applicable because it's a very similar thing, applied to a different group of people.

Edited by Gamma, 07 December 2017 - 05:43 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#348 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:53 PM

I continue to stand with the NRA (see below) Yesterday's passage of H.R. 38 is good news to me. United we stand, divided we fall.
========================================

House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Wednesday, December 6, 2017


Fairfax, Va.—The National Rifle Association applauded the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday for passing the most far-reaching expansion of self-defense rights in modern American history. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 passed with bipartisan support in a 231-198 vote.

“This vote marks a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is the culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines.”

The bill, H.R. 38, ensures that those Americans who can legally carry a concealed firearm in one state will legally be able to do so in every other state. It eliminates the confusing patchwork of state laws that have ensnared otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and have forced law enforcement to waste their precious time and resources enforcing laws that don’t do anything to reduce violent crime.

The bill also makes improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. All Americans, including law-abiding gun owners, agree that violent criminals should not have legal access to firearms. However, the system is only as good as its records, and recent events have shown that sometimes the correct information is not entered into the system. This bill incentivizes states and government agencies to update the NICS with legitimate records of prohibited persons.

Additionally, the bill creates an expedited process for removing records that are erroneously put in the system. Currently, when a person discovers they have been wrongly added to the NICS, it can take up to a year to get their name removed. This bill requires a response to an appeal within 60 days.

“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law. We now call on the Senate to take up and pass this critical legislation,” Cox concluded.

The National Rifle Association would especially like to thank Rep. Richard Hudson, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise for their extraordinary efforts to pass this important legislation.​

https://www.nraila.o...rry-reciprocity

NRA TV video about HR38 Passage

https://www.nratv.co...n-1-episode-236

#349 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,861 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 05:55 PM

 

I guess the 4 lawyers I personally know and have discussed this with, all don't know what they're talking about lol.  One's an anti, one doesn't care, and the other two are pro gun.  They all magically have the same opinion of how this could, and more than likely will be used by future democrat controlled chambers of congress and the presidency.  

 

I wonder who's idea it was to base this on the commerce clause?

 

That's the problem...people desperately want to believe that the GOP is pro gun.  A no vote on a gun ban bill isn't being pro gun, it's guaranteeing reelection.  How many times have you seen a republican doing a photo op where they were actually shooting?  I've seen numerous ones, and you can tell that it's probably the first time they've shot a gun in years lol.  We've had nearly a full year of republican control, and this is the first gun bill they're trying to pass?    

 

My step mom, a partner of a law firm, read the bill over the evening yesterday and I spoke to her today about it.  She's pro gun, and she said the bill as written is not good, and then said much of what I've already said about it.  

 

She said there's no way this actually passes the senate because there's too much crap in there, and a bill that actually sought to make carry legal across all 50 states for ordinary people would've also made use of the Full Faith and credit clause because then the chances of it making it through the courts is much greater.  I honestly didn't know much about that clause until speaking with her earlier today.  It would basically have congress requiring states to honor the laws of other states.  

 

The most poignant thing she said is that as easily as this can be passed, it can also be repealed just as easily.  


Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson


#350 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 06:57 PM

Mark Walters (Armed American Radio) interviewed the Second Amendment Foundations Alan Gottleib back on Jan 12 regarding H.R. 38.

This is a good interview, and Alan addresses some of the issues surrounding (1) carrying in your home state on an out-of-state license, and (2) the commerce clause.

Mark also reads my email on the air starting around 15:30, and Alan responds to it. Therefore I highly recommend listening to this episode, ha ha. :)

http://armedamerican...ves/2017-01-12/

Edited by kwc, 07 December 2017 - 06:59 PM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#351 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,906 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:08 PM

Mark Walters (Armed American Radio) interviewed the Second Amendment Foundations Alan Gottleib back on Jan 12 regarding H.R. 38.

This is a good interview, and Alan addresses some of the issues surrounding (1) carrying in your home state on an out-of-state license, and (2) the commerce clause.

Mark also reads my email on the air starting around 15:30, and Alan responds to it. Therefore I highly recommend listening to this episode, ha ha. :)

http://armedamerican...ves/2017-01-12/

It's an hour long.  Perhaps a summary?


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#352 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,906 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:09 PM

 

 

The fact that some of the anti's that actually understand the constitution are happy about this should concern all of us.  

The antis will try to pass anti-gun laws regardless of this passing or not. This doesn't suddenly enable them.

If you oppose federal laws expanding gun rights you ensure that future federal gun laws will only restrict gun rights.

 

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.  

 

Let me ask you a question.  If the GOP is as pro gun as we all like to believe, why haven't we seen further expansions of gun rights?  

 

The states were designed to be set up as mini experiments in government.  Ideas that were popular enough for most of the states would then either be codified federally into law, or if popular enough, amending the bill of rights to include it.  

 

Concealed carry is lawful, in some form, across all 50 states.  That should indicate that the idea is popular enough for a constitutional amendment making it lawful across all of the states.  

 

By using a vehicle (commerce clause), which is ALWAYS used by both sides of the aisle to ram more federal power down our throats, and increase the size and power of the federal government, is just going to do the opposite of what we all hope.  

 

So everyone can cheer this on, raise a toast if this passes, but when democrats eventually take back control, we're all going to be regretting the day we celebrated.  

 

My guess as to what's going to happen:  1.  It dies in the senate.  2.  It passes, but significantly changed.  3.  Passes as is, is signed into law, and then the blue states start lighting up the courts with lawsuits, which can lead to forcing SCOTUS into addressing carry outside of the home, which wasn't addressed in Heller or McDonald.  Which way would Kennedy swing on this one?  4.  It passes, somehow is able to make it through court challenges, and then when democrats find themselves in a majority position, they use it exactly as these anti lawyers are saying and we lose concealed carry nationally, ultimately forcing SCOTUS to address it at that point, which could be 15 years down the road when we don't know what the makeup of the court will look like.  

 

It's time for a constitutional amendment to ensure we don't ultimately get screwed by this down the road.  

 

Perhaps you can give a concrete example of how it could be used against us.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#353 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:18 PM

@cybermgk: Read my posts above and you essentially have Alan's thoughts on this.

Alan is on only for the first 20 min. You'll get the gist of it when my email kicks off; listen starting 15:30 to about 20 min into the show.

1. He agrees the bill lets you carry in your home state with a permit from another state

2. He feels the Commerce Clause has been abused, but were throwing it back in the anti's face. Furthermore, the bill is more likely to stand up in court using the Commerce Clause. Right to bear under 2A hasn't been fully tested yet in court. Commerce is essentially the law of the land-make our enemies choke on it.

 

 

.


 


Edited by kwc, 08 December 2017 - 09:56 AM.

"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#354 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:20 PM

 

I continue to stand with the NRA (see below) Yesterday's passage of H.R. 38 is good news to me. United we stand, divided we fall.
========================================

House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

Wednesday, December 6, 2017


Fairfax, Va.—The National Rifle Association applauded the United States House of Representatives on Wednesday for passing the most far-reaching expansion of self-defense rights in modern American history. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 passed with bipartisan support in a 231-198 vote.

“This vote marks a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. “The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is the culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines.”

The bill, H.R. 38, ensures that those Americans who can legally carry a concealed firearm in one state will legally be able to do so in every other state. It eliminates the confusing patchwork of state laws that have ensnared otherwise law-abiding gun owners, and have forced law enforcement to waste their precious time and resources enforcing laws that don’t do anything to reduce violent crime.

The bill also makes improvements to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, NICS. All Americans, including law-abiding gun owners, agree that violent criminals should not have legal access to firearms. However, the system is only as good as its records, and recent events have shown that sometimes the correct information is not entered into the system. This bill incentivizes states and government agencies to update the NICS with legitimate records of prohibited persons.

Additionally, the bill creates an expedited process for removing records that are erroneously put in the system. Currently, when a person discovers they have been wrongly added to the NICS, it can take up to a year to get their name removed. This bill requires a response to an appeal within 60 days.

“This bill ensures that all law-abiding citizens in our great country can protect themselves in the manner they see fit without accidentally running afoul of the law. We now call on the Senate to take up and pass this critical legislation,” Cox concluded.

The National Rifle Association would especially like to thank Rep. Richard Hudson, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Speaker Paul Ryan, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, and Majority Whip Steve Scalise for their extraordinary efforts to pass this important legislation.​

https://www.nraila.o...rry-reciprocity

NRA TV video about HR38 Passage

https://www.nratv.co...n-1-episode-236

Hudson interview about "behind the scenes" of all this time pushing the Bill is outstanding.



#355 Smallbore

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 07

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:21 PM

What am I missing?
1. If it passes and law suits start, how does that change or hurt us from what we have now.
2. If it passes, law suits fail then latter Dems control congress and reoeal this, how does that hurt us from what we have now?
3. What today stops future dem control from passing any anti legislation?

Edited by Smallbore, 07 December 2017 - 07:22 PM.


#356 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,175 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:21 PM

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.  
 
Let me ask you a question.  If the GOP is as pro gun as we all like to believe, why haven't we seen further expansions of gun rights?

I'm really not seeing how this enables the antis any more than they are right now. Can you flesh out your reasons for believing this opens a new avenue for them?

As far as GOP goes, this is the first time in many years we had a GOP Congress and a pro-gun President. And here they are trying to pass a national reciprocity bill... and you're opposing it?

Edited by chislinger, 07 December 2017 - 07:22 PM.

"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#357 kwc

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,402 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 13

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:34 PM

Hudson interview about "behind the scenes" of all this time pushing the Bill is outstanding.


Yes. Great interview.
"Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up." - Galations 6:9 (NIV)

"If you can't explain it to a six-year old, you don't understand it yourself." - Albert Einstein (paraphrased)

#358 OldMarineVet

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,137 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 14

Posted 07 December 2017 - 07:58 PM

Mark Walters (Armed American Radio) interviewed the Second Amendment Foundations Alan Gottleib back on Jan 12 regarding H.R. 38.

This is a good interview, and Alan addresses some of the issues surrounding (1) carrying in your home state on an out-of-state license, and (2) the commerce clause.

Mark also reads my email on the air starting around 15:30, and Alan responds to it. Therefore I highly recommend listening to this episode, ha ha. :)

http://armedamerican...ves/2017-01-12/

Very informative. Great email from you.



#359 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,436 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 08 December 2017 - 12:02 AM

Mark Walters (Armed American Radio) interviewed the Second Amendment Foundations Alan Gottleib back on Jan 12 regarding H.R. 38.

This is a good interview, and Alan addresses some of the issues surrounding (1) carrying in your home state on an out-of-state license, and (2) the commerce clause.

Mark also reads my email on the air starting around 15:30, and Alan responds to it. Therefore I highly recommend listening to this episode, ha ha. :)

http://armedamerican...ves/2017-01-12/

Very informative. Great email from you.

"Sometimes you have to do what you know is going to win"

Their quote of the day, and an apt counterpoint to all the wishful thinkers that want to ignore the reality of the current political and legal situation and processes.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#360 DD123

    Freedom Lover

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,861 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 14

Posted 08 December 2017 - 08:34 AM

 

That literally makes no sense whatsoever.  This gives future democratic majorities free reign over restricting gun rights, by using this as the vehicle with which to do so.  

The antis will try to pass anti-gun laws regardless of this passing or not. This doesn't suddenly enable them.

If you oppose federal laws expanding gun rights you ensure that future federal gun laws will only restrict gun rights.

 

 

Let me ask you a question.  If the GOP is as pro gun as we all like to believe, why haven't we seen further expansions of gun rights?  

 

The states were designed to be set up as mini experiments in government.  Ideas that were popular enough for most of the states would then either be codified federally into law, or if popular enough, amending the bill of rights to include it.  

 

Concealed carry is lawful, in some form, across all 50 states.  That should indicate that the idea is popular enough for a constitutional amendment making it lawful across all of the states.  

 

By using a vehicle (commerce clause), which is ALWAYS used by both sides of the aisle to ram more federal power down our throats, and increase the size and power of the federal government, is just going to do the opposite of what we all hope.  

 

So everyone can cheer this on, raise a toast if this passes, but when democrats eventually take back control, we're all going to be regretting the day we celebrated.  

 

My guess as to what's going to happen:  1.  It dies in the senate.  2.  It passes, but significantly changed.  3.  Passes as is, is signed into law, and then the blue states start lighting up the courts with lawsuits, which can lead to forcing SCOTUS into addressing carry outside of the home, which wasn't addressed in Heller or McDonald.  Which way would Kennedy swing on this one?  4.  It passes, somehow is able to make it through court challenges, and then when democrats find themselves in a majority position, they use it exactly as these anti lawyers are saying and we lose concealed carry nationally, ultimately forcing SCOTUS to address it at that point, which could be 15 years down the road when we don't know what the makeup of the court will look like.  

 

It's time for a constitutional amendment to ensure we don't ultimately get screwed by this down the road.  

 

Perhaps you can give a concrete example of how it could be used against us.

 

Don't take this as a snide remark, because it's not intended to be.  But it helps if one understands the commerce clause, how it was viewed since the founding up until the 30's when the abuse of it started.  

 

The commerce clause was intended to do exactly what it says.....to regulate commerce.  It was intended to prevent states from passing protectionist laws that impact interstate commerce of goods.  An example would be a trucker in Indiana picking up a load to deliver to Iowa, and must pass through Illinois, however Illinois imposes a tariff on his truckload, since there's someone who sells the same product that's produced in Illinois.  There's actually a great case to be made against Illinois' protectionist liquor distribution laws as they stand because they're screwing over wine distributors from out of state.  That's what the commerce clause meant.  

 

That is until the 30's when a farmer in Ohio grew more wheat than the government allowed for by quota.  He found his way all the way up to SCOTUS, and lost.  He said that he grew the wheat, but not to sell, but to use to feed himself, his family, as well as his cattle.  SCOTUS ruled that by doing that, he affected interstate commerce since he could have just bought that extra wheat from another farmer.  

 

The abuses of the commerce clause continued from that case, up until the mid 90's when the court heard the case of Lopez.  The case involved the passage of the Gun Free School Zone Act, someone was caught with a gun, and managed to get his case up to SCOTUS.  SCOTUS for the first time since the 30's actually ruled against the government's use of the commerce clause.  So in that case, congress used the commerce clause to state that possessing a gun in a school zone affected commerce.  Their reasoning was that gun violence is bad, it affects children, impacts their ability to learn, limiting their ability to get good jobs after they get out of school, which would affect commerce because they wouldn't be able to buy goods.  

 

The commerce clause was also used to push through new regulations so that the FTC could have power over yard sales, yes yard sales.  This is a law that's routinely abused.  Just look for yourself online.  Google "government abuses of the commerce clause" or something similar and have fun getting angry and frustrated by what you read.  

 

There was a congressional hearing where Justice Kagan was being asked questions by Coburn, and he asked her "through the commerce clause, could the federal government mandate that all Americans eat 3 vegetables per day".  Her answer was "YES".  

 

Obamacare is a flagrant abuse of the commerce clause.  

 

This won't survive a run through the courts.  The GOP wrote this bill knowing that.  They even sabotaged it by inserting the NICS fix stuff.  This way when the dems all don't vote in favor of the bill, and they don't have enough votes, the GOP can throw their hands into the air, say aw shucks sorry guys we tried, and then we get aggravated by it.  So the chances of it passing are single digit at best, and 0% of making it through the courts.  

 

My problem with this bill, and quite honestly it should be every actual conservatives problem, is that it's another abuse of the commerce clause.  A clause that is not being used as the framers intended.  

 

Believe me, I want constitutional carry and national reciprocity as much as everyone else does, however I'm not willing to get a shiny trinket in exchange for granting the federal government more powers than it constitutionally deserves.  

 

What happens in 10 years when democrats take full control of the house, senate, and Oval Office?  Because we're not going to be in control forever.

 

Here's an example of what you're asking.  If it goes through the courts and is justified on the commerce clause grounds, then congress has the ability to regulate it regardless of state police power.  If it doesn't go through the court, the states have given congress the right to legislate on concealed carry nationally.  Whatever congress gives, they can take away.   

 

If you don't believe that a future democrat controlled government will use the commerce clause again to infringe on concealed carry after that power has been usurped by the federal government, then I ask you to read the Lopez case and see what rationale they used to pass the gun free school zone act.  Because they will use the exact same tortured logic to try.  


Edited by DD123, 08 December 2017 - 08:37 AM.

Force and intimidation are the tools of tyrants.  - Ron Paul

 

If Democrats quit shooting people, "gun violence" would go down by 80%.......

 

Taxation is theft

 

"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny" - Thomas Jefferson





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users