Reciprocity

[Triphammer]

Anyone know where this is sitting. What about the "Hearing Protection Act of2017"? they both sort of dried up.

[MechAg94]

I assumed they were dead for this year and will be reintroduced in the 2018 session.  I heard some people thinking the tax bill passed because a bunch of this Russia stuff with Trump was flaming out and they were no longer afraid to support him.  We'll see if that carries over to other issues.  With the majority in the Senate smaller by one, I am not sure if enough support is there.

[Hawkmoon]

Reciprocity passed the House, with the "Fix NICS" bill tacked on. The Senate bill is different and, so far, doesn't have Fix NICS attached. It's going to be very close in the Senate. Probable odds are slightly against passage, but it's not dead yet.

What astonishes me is how many purportedly "pro-gun, pro-2A" people are adamantly against this bill -- and when they're questioned, it becomes obvious that they don't even understand what it says, but they're certain it's bad anyway. Just saw an example over on The Firing Line:

https://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=592107

This was discussed at the recent meeting of my state's pro-carry advocacy group. They are 100 percent behind it.

[wmenorr67]

I am probably wrong but I thought that this bill had to pass with a 60% majority, which means more than likely it won't get past the Senate.

[Hawkmoon]

I am probably wrong but I thought that this bill had to pass with a 60% majority, which means more than likely it won't get past the Senate.

I believe you are correct. And, last I knew, the main sponsor of the Senate bill didn't want Fix NICS attached to it, which I think is a mistake. Fix NICS doesn't expand NICS, it just aims to ensure that dirtbags like the Texas church shooter don't slip through the cracks gaping holes because the Air Force isn't doing its job. Having Fix NICS attached might (note, "might") cause a couple of random Democrats to vote for it.

[Pb]

Contact your senators, everyone.

[230RN]

...

What astonishes me is how many purportedly "pro-gun, pro-2A" people are adamantly against this bill -- and when they're questioned, it becomes obvious that they don't even understand what it says, but they're certain it's bad anyway.

...

Well, dang, you suckered me into commenting again on the reciprocity law.

What astonishes me is how any 2A supporter can be in favor of it.

Anyone who supports this law is being shortsighted and naive, regardless of how it reads today.

For, indeed, what is writ today can be amended tomorrow, and I, personally, do not want the Federal government having any say whatsoever in concealed carry laws, "good," or "bad," or "indifferent." Camel's noses and all that.

For "what is writ today can be amended tomorrow."

If  you want to carry in New York, fine.  Get a New York permit (HA!) or don't carry in New York.

Period.

I have gone into great detail on this on another board and it would appear that those who are in favor of this law cannot change their minds.

Well, neither can I, no matter how it is written... today.

Terry

[Firethorn]

For, indeed, what is writ today can be amended tomorrow, and I, personally, do not want the Federal government having any say whatsoever in concealed carry laws, "good," or "bad," or "indifferent." Camel's noses and all that.

You do realize that amending a bill is about as difficult as it is to simply pass one, or to introduce and pass a completely new bill, right?

Matter of fact, it's more difficult at this point to amend it, because a "clean" pass goes straight to the president's desk.  An amended version would have to go back to the house for a revote.

Endless pessimism doesn't get you very far.

[230RN]

I mean amended in two, three, or ten years, not literally tomorrow.

Lawmaker A from a free state and Lawmaker B from a restrictive state are having lunch in 2019.  Or 20XX, for that matter.

B: So if you vote for my requirement to have insurance if you have a permit, I'll vote for your bill to move a new Air Force Base to your State.

A: It's a deal.

B: While we're at it, why don't we make it a requirement for them to pass a shooting test?

A:  Nah.

B:  (Thinks to himself) <Well, I'll try again on the proficiency test next year.>

So don't talk to me about being endlessly pessimistic.  That scene is perfectly possible.  How about "endlessly realistic" instead?

I tell ya true, I went over this a while ago and I don't feel like doing it all again.  Let others take up the cudgel against a National Reciprocity law.

If it, regardless of its present verbiage, ends up being passed and signed, so be it, but I can guarantee that the antis will use it as an opening for more restrictions sooner or later.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

I mean amended in two, three, or ten years, not literally tomorrow.

Lawmaker A from a free state and Lawmaker B from a restrictive state are having lunch in 2019.  Or 20XX, for that matter.

B: So if you vote for my requirement to have insurance if you have a permit, I'll vote for your bill to move a new Air Force Base to your State.

A: It's a deal.

B: While we're at it, why don't we make it a requirement for them to pass a shooting test?

A:  Nah.

B:  (Thinks to himself) <Well, I'll try again on the proficiency test next year.>

So don't talk to me about being endlessly pessimistic.  That scene is perfectly possible.  How about "endlessly realistic" instead?

I tell ya true, I went over this a while ago and I don't feel like doing it all again.  Let others take up the cudgel against a National Reciprocity law.

If it, regardless of its present verbiage, ends up being passed and signed, so be it, but I can guarantee that the antis will use it as an opening for more restrictions sooner or later.

The bill currently proposed includes NOTHING regarding the application for or issuance of permits by any state. All it does is tell states that they have to honor permits properly issued by the other states, or allow people who don't need a permit at home to carry without a permit when on vacation.

All those doomsday scenarios you're so worried about? They could do that next year even if national reciprocity doesn't pass. It would be an entirely different realm of regulation, but they could justify it under the interstate commerce clause. They wouldn't need to have a national reciprocity law on the books.

[230RN]

"...currently proposed...."  Heh.  

OK, this is my final word on it.

Hawkmoon, you and I agree on so many things, but I point out that as far as I know can remember, this is the first time the Federal Government has poked its nose into concealed carry in a major way beyond the words "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.*

If you fail to see what a precipitous step that is, on its face, I cannot say any more.

My sense of it is that there are a few folks who would like to carry in New York or Maryland or Hawaii** or wherever, who are pushing this as "an expansion of civil rights" without realizing that it is fraught with danger to our civil rights in the long run to the rest of us.

If people cannot see that, or refuse to see it, there is nothing more I can say.

Terry, 230RN

* And stretching it a bit, with respect to the concealability of long arms in the NFA.  Also WRT local law, in Circuit Courts, ie. Peruta.

** Or while attending the NRA Director's meetings.  :)

[Edited to change "know" to "can remember."]

[sumpnz]

Then why bother doing ANYTHING, ever, to advance freedom?  After all, it can just be amended by someone else 10 years later.

[Hawkmoon]

Hawkmoon, you and I agree on so many things, but I point out that as far as I know, this is the first time the Federal Government has poked its nose into concealed carry in a major way beyond the words "bear arms" in the Second Amendment.*

You're overlooking the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA). That overrides states rights just as much (or as little) as this proposed law would.

[Pb]

Then why bother doing ANYTHING, ever, to advance freedom?  After all, it can just be amended by someone else 10 years later.

This!

If by a miracle this passed the Senate, it would be the biggest advancement by the second ammendment since the second ammendment was written... Millions of people who currently can't carry would be able to carry.... and would have a stake in protecting gun rights.