Add Concealed Carry reciprocity to must-pass First Step Act

[StevieP]

Saw this on Emily Miller's Facebook & Twitter feed.

Miller suggested:

The Senate should put the House-passed Conceal Carry Reciprocity Act to a vote before recess. Bill will die in new year and won’t get another chance until Republicans take back House and keep White House. May not have the votes but at least try. #2A

A Virginia Republican replied:

Rollin Reisinger‏ @RollinReisinger
Replying to @EmilyMiller
Current thinking seems to be adding it on to the must-pass First Step Act. Not sure that gets it to 60 in the Senate, but would present Democrats with a real problem.

------------

Miller is right. If it's not submitted now, it won't be, for a long time.

 

[StevieP]

FIRST STEP Act

 

[StevieP]

Isn't that what this is getting is closer toward? National Constitutional Carry sounds good to me.

 

[HorizontalHunter]

I don’t want the feds involved in my permit either but the current state by state patchwork of gun laws doesn’t work in this day and age. My right to carry a weapon should not be constrained by arbitrary lines on a map.

It should be treated like a drivers license and be recognized and accepted in every state.

Bob

 

[drgrant]

National Reciprocity - the shiny toy that's vaporware, dog and pony show exercise the NRA runs to make members think they're getting something... instead of shooting for low hanging, easy sell fruit... (like a law that cleans up FOPA )

 

[pcgod]

The problem with reciprocity is each state has different hoops to go through for their CCW licenses. Or at least that is the argument. It does help folks who travel through states that may not recognize your states license. The argument for reciprocity is that at the very least a background check is done when you receive the license. However this would NOT include states that don't require a license for carry and does not effect folks that have firearms in free states that may not require a permit to buy...such as long guns. It isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction. It IS better than a National Carry Permit that the fed have total control over. Just my 2 cents.

 

[drgrant]

If we all agree that constitutional carry is the only solution then how does encouraging usurpation of yet another power by the federal gov going to solve this problem.......imho it just creates a separate issue that the fed gov will eventually get around to abusing......just like virtually every other power thats been usurped in past.

I'm not worried about the feds abusing natrep, I'm worried about the shithole states doing a knee-jerk reaction hatchet job with their own laws which would end up
f***ing things up for people that have things like NY or CT pistol permits and that kind of thing. All a shithole state has to do is legislatively make a new container for people with gun licenses (eg, so they can still have a god tier container for off duty LE, security types, and "washed" rich people, etc. ) deposit the defacto permit holders in that container, and then place all kinds of convoluted laws etc around them which would withstand a basic federal scrutiny test.

Also any national reciprocity legislation is worthless if it doesn't stipulate that a state actor violating it is committing a federal felony. Without teeth the law is
worthless and gets ignored at ground level. And I have never heard of a natrep proposal that included that provision. Or for that matter, any other kind of provision that includes some type of relief, even if it was just a monetary fine against the agency paid out to the victim. Without it, the garbage state LEOs are
going to do whatever they want without punishment or accountability.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

The problem with reciprocity is each state has different hoops to go through for their CCW licenses. Or at least that is the argument. It does help folks who travel through states that may not recognize your states license. The argument for reciprocity is that at the very least a background check is done when you receive the license. However this would NOT include states that don't require a license for carry and does not effect folks that have firearms in free states that may not require a permit to buy...such as long guns. It isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction. It IS better than a National Carry Permit that the fed have total control over. Just my 2 cents.

The non shitty states won't care much they'd figure it out or just bite their tongue. The half dozen or so problem children, however, would throw a full retard nutty and completely f*** up their laws to nullify it as much as possible, or issue directives to ignore it, etc, until it works through the courts.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

The Democrats control the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House controls which bills come to the floor for a vote. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi will let a CCW reciprocity bill come to the floor for a vote? In the unlikely event that she did, the bill wouldn’t pass as the Democrats have a majority.

Over in the Senate, while the Republicans have a slim majority, they don’t have enough votes to win a vote of cloture (needs 60 votes and the Republicans only have 53). All it takes is one Democrat to filibuster and the bill wouldn’t come to a vote. Do you remember who the Senate Minority Leader is? Senator Chuck Schumer, who never met an anti-gun bill he didn’t like.

Here is my prediction: CCW reciprocity won’t come to a vote in the House. It won’t come to a vote in the Senate. In the unlikely event that it passes, it will be tied up in court for years.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but this just ain’t happening.

 

[M1911]

So it would be just like Mass, NJ and others current directives to ignore FOPA.....

I’m not aware of MA ignoring FOPA. I’ve read of NJ doing so, but not of an incident in MA. Most of the incidents I’ve read about in MA are ones where FOPA doesn’t apply — for instance where the individual’s destination was MA.

 

[drgrant]

Is there a usurped power that you can provide example of where the fed gov DIDNT abuse it BADLY and repeatedly?

I don't really see this as a "usurped power" outside of that one specific area. It's not like the feds are issuing licenses, or even determining
criteria for such, etc.

This already exists and is happening today is it not?

Yes, but not to the degree I think it would go to if the shit states go FR. I just think it would "inspire" them to crank up the stupidity in their
laws.

Until RKBA is treated as any other civil right and by extension punishment of violations of said civil right nothing is going to change

Even then relief is often difficult. When's the last time a .gov official actually got thrown in jail for a 1A or 4A violation? Sure there's USC1983 or whatever but
that might as well be a slow boat to china, and the petitioner might be dead by the time they win...

The only "behavior modification" is when suddenly those violations become criminal acts, or end up costing some entity a lot of money.

Of course none of this matters anyways, as M1911 says, this doesn't have a chance in hell of passing. It didn't before either.

NatRep is just some stupid NRA pipe dream to make its member base think that it's doing something other than harvesting money.

-Mike

 

[Waher]

The legislation already passed. It’s called the 14th amendment.

 

[StevieP]

The Democrats control the House of Representatives. The Speaker of the House controls which bills come to the floor for a vote. Do you really think Nancy Pelosi will let a CCW reciprocity bill come to the floor for a vote? In the unlikely event that she did, the bill wouldn’t pass as the Democrats have a majority.

Over in the Senate, while the Republicans have a slim majority, they don’t have enough votes to win a vote of cloture (needs 60 votes and the Republicans only have 53). All it takes is one Democrat to filibuster and the bill wouldn’t come to a vote. Do you remember who the Senate Minority Leader is? Senator Chuck Schumer, who never met an anti-gun bill he didn’t like.

Here is my prediction: CCW reciprocity won’t come to a vote in the House. It won’t come to a vote in the Senate. In the unlikely event that it passes, it will be tied up in court for years.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but this just ain’t happening.

It already passed the current/last house vote. Just needs the CURRENT (not Pelosi) to bring it to the CURRENT Senate for a vote. That's why it needs to come up now, because it might be a long time before we have a Republican Senate and President again.

 

[M1911]

It already passed the current/last house vote. Just needs the CURRENT (not Pelosi) to bring it to the CURRENT Senate for a vote. That's why it needs to come up now, because it might be a long time before we have a Republican Senate and President again.

It won’t come up now. This legislative session is basically over. Lame duck sessions aren’t going to take up a controversial bill in the few days before XMAS.

Furthermore, the Republican majority in the Senate now is even smaller than it will be after the new members are sworn in. The Republicans don’t have enough votes for a vote of cloture. Chuck Schumer will just filibuster.

Once the new Congress starts in January, everything starts over from scratch and a new bill has to be filed and passed, which won’t happen.

My prediction remains — national reciprocity is still DOA.

 

[Davidk]

Rs have had full control for more than 2 years. What good have then done?????????

 

[MAGA99]

I think a lot of blood will need to be shed before the evil people in our country recognize our god given civil rights.

 

[M1911]

Rs have had full control for more than 2 years. What good have then done?????????

The Republicans didn’t have enough votes in the Senate to win a vote of cloture.

 

[drgrant]

The Republicans didn’t have enough votes in the Senate to win a vote of cloture.

IMHO they could have easily at least TRY to chain it onto something else, cloture etc wasn't the be all end all. the reality is they had no intention of ever passing it to
begin with, regardless of the numbers of votes. Most do not want to "reach" to push gun rights, etc. The NATREP bills are functionally no different than their counterpart anti gun bills that used to appear during the
Obama administration, like thte AWB renewal attempts. Some handful of legislators pushes it forward, "gently" but never risks political capital for it (eg, there is probably a lack of big name sponsorship in many
cases) only so they can give lip service about the issue to part of their constituency. Not sure who filed the last piece of Natrep legislation but I would bet that off the record it was a matter of "deep down, we all knew this had no chance of ever passing, but we had to produce it because the NRA polished and waxed my balls during the last election cycle and I need to keep up appearances." etc.

So called pro gun legislators don't try stuff like tethering a pro gun bill to the back end of something that the commies really want, which would make it difficult for the antis to shoot a given bill down. In other words, it gets easier when you get to say something like pulling some federal funding bill for a few trailers of school books, has the litle pro gun bill stuck to the ass end of it somewhere. Then the pro gunners get to go "YOURE GUNNA VOTE AGAINST IT? BUT Y THO? DONT YOU CARE ABOUT THE CHILLLLDREN??????"""

-Mike

 

[VetteGirlMA]

If we permit the federal government unprecedented power over CCW whats to prevent congress from turning around and prohibiting CCW in all states and violating 10A down the road?

No matter where you stand on CCW, the federal gov inserting itself into the situation is a 10A violation unless you do it in a manner that is consistent with 2A......only way to do that is to push for national constitutional carry......aka NO infringement

Do you think the left in this country cares about the constitution in the slightest unless it's a gay or transgender person? No they don't care. They have no problems infringing here and infringing there all while people are yelling 'shall not be infringed'. Do you think for one second a liberal would lose a minutes sleep over national level gun bans? No they wouldn't, they would sleep like children. Want to gut punch these guys so hard that they reconsider their life choices? Play their game and put them on the defensive for once. Make them prove to the courts that such a right doesn't exist or can be infringed here and there. Make them stand in front of courts and say publicly that they want to willfully ignore precedent. I think nat recip is the perfect vehicle to forever enshrine 2A into the 14th amendment powers into the constitution.

 

[42!]

The problem with reciprocity is each state has different hoops to go through for their CCW licenses. Or at least that is the argument. It does help folks who travel through states that may not recognize your states license. The argument for reciprocity is that at the very least a background check is done when you receive the license. However this would NOT include states that don't require a license for carry and does not effect folks that have firearms in free states that may not require a permit to buy...such as long guns. It isn't perfect but it is a step in the right direction. It IS better than a National Carry Permit that the fed have total control over. Just my 2 cents.

Actually it does address states that do not require a permit, they would be allowed under the same conditions as their home state. You would just need to be able to show that you are a resident of a Con Carry state.

It also covers ammo and mags, so if you are from NH and are in MA there would be no mag limit.

And because of the language, and there was an article on this way back, a holder of a non-resident permit in "a" state, would have to be honored in their home state even if they didn't have a resident permit. Ya, I expect this part to be thrown out by the courts.

And if you're worried about Fed abuse. Well they already regulate firearms so how does this change anything? It doesn't grant the fed any more power than they already have, it doesn't add any fed restrictions. No, it doesn't give any more freedom but there is no down side to requiring states to honor permits from other states. Yes, a specific preemption clause would be better, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

My guess is the Rs don't want reciprocity to pass since it will give the Ds a rallying cry, but they want to be seen as in favor of it.

 

[mac1911]

Congess (Republicans ) only need to pass one bill the “reminder of the 2a and not to infringe “ make so any state that infringed the 2a more than convicted violent felon looses federal funding
OR even a bill that gets Our federal gov back on track to defending THIS country and making sure the states are not ignoring the Constitution they agreed upon to be included in the union of the states

 

[VetteGirlMA]

My guess is the Rs don't want reciprocity to pass since it will give the Ds a rallying cry, but they want to be seen as in favor of it.

So republicans want our vote but offer up lip service as a reason to vote for them?? Might as well vote for liberals then.

 

[Qwikdraw45]

National CCW will never pass. The R's had control of the House, Senate and White House and yet what have they accomplished? Not a single thing that they promised.

 

[M1911]

So republicans want our vote but offer up lip service as a reason to vote for them?? Might as well vote for liberals then.

I disagree strongly.

There is a very real difference between politicians who won’t risk their neck to help us versus politicians who are actively trying to screw us at every opportunity.

Benign neglect is far better than persecution.

 

[crispnipz]

National CCW will never pass. The R's had control of the House, Senate and White House and yet what have they accomplished? Not a single thing that they promised.

"Controlling" the senate by 51-49 is like controlling your car by having just your pinky finger on the steering wheel. National Reciprocity passed the House easily but no Senate Dim (except maybe Joe Manchin) would vote for it, so it was never brought up in the Senate. How do you force the necessary 8-9 Dems to vote yes on a pro-gun bill (assuming every single R votes yes)?