It's not just youtube it's also Congressman Massie & GOA. What's the big deal about it is that it's more infringements that will really do nothing to solve the problem but will probably just catch up people that didn't realize another gun law was passed that has now turned them into criminals. Gun control is negative because it infringes on the rights of the people and creates an imbalance of power that favors tyrants,terrorists, criminals and madmen because they don't abide by the law. No one that wasn't involved in a criminal act should be blamed or held accountable for the acts of the previously mentioned people.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
ALERT: Feinstein/Schumer sponsored gun legislation that amends the “Brady bill”
- Thread starter Celtics83
- Start date
VetteGirlMA
NES Member
First off, Massie is one congressmen who has no particularly influential position. So I'm not putting much into his wild "what if", "could happen" (cry for attention) blog. And the GOA screams a lot but doesn't do much more than make some pro 2a feel like they have a friend. They are not the lobbying powerhouse that the NRA is.
As for more gun control, point to one new restriction in either bill.
There are restrictions on states that unfairly ignore the rights of non-residents in HR38 and there are requirements that the information be verified before being entered into NICS in HR4477, and there is accountability in both.
If you are going to talk about more gun control and making people criminals, please show us where this is in the bills. If it exists in the bills and I missed it, I'm more than willing to admit it.
I'm not seeing it in the text of the bill either. It mentions, "felony conviction records and domestic violence records" but I am assuming (maybe a bad assumption) that domestic violence records are the restraining orders related to 11.h on the 4473.
In fact, Section (1)G.i specifically says: "The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code." That would seem to be in direct and unmistakable opposition to what is said in the original post.
Seems like just another politician trying to generate hype to be seen as pro-2A to me. I think we should be paying more attention to what these bills actually say than what politicians want us to think about them.
So you just choose to ignore what others have to say.If Gabby Giffords and Every Town Moms think it's a good idea it probably isn't. You'd think by now gun owners would know that there are people in the govt. that can't be trusted and that this is something that we should be wary of. The NRA is thought of as the powerhouse but they sure seem to have trouble stopping gun control legislation. We usually have to accept something like the bump stock ban because hey it's good for us or it's the right thing to do. Which it isn't. You can choose to ignore the possibilities I choose to at least listen to the possibilities. The GOA has a much better understanding of what the words "shall not be infringed" means. The following is copied and pasted from a GOA email.
URGENT: Tell Your Congressman to Support Concealed Carry Reciprocity
Dear James,
This is the big week.
It looks like at long last, the House will finally vote on a concealed carry reciprocity bill, H.R. 38, which includes protections for residents of Constitutional Carry states.
The expected vote could come Wednesday or Thursday.
If the Constitutional Carry reciprocity bill passes the House, it will be a momentous occasion.
The House has passed reciprocity bills in the past -- but they've never had a protection for Constitutional Carry states, which is something that GOA has been insisting upon.
Rep. Richard Hudson is the author of the Constitutional Carry reciprocity bill, H.R. 38. In an article that is posted on GOA's website, he said that:
Currently, the hodgepodge of concealed carry reciprocity laws and agreements between states is confusing, causing some law-abiding concealed carry permit holders to innocently and unknowingly break the law and suffer arrest, while preventing others from carrying over state lines at all. My bill is a simple, common sense solution -- it will affirm that law-abiding citizens who are qualified to carry concealed firearms in one state can also carry in other states that allow residents to do so.
This is a simple application of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution requiring that states give "full faith and credit" to the "public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state."
I couldn't agree more.
And that's why I need you to contact your Congressman and urge them to vote for H.R. 38, the concealed carry reciprocity bill.
GOA Stands Firm in Opposition to Gun Control
Now, for another matter.
For a couple of weeks following the Sutherland Springs shooting, it seemed that Congress was going to pass an anti-gun "Fix NICS" bill before getting to any pro-gun legislation.
If you are wondering why there is so much impetus to pass the Fix NICS gun control bill, here's why:
Everyone loves [the Fix NICS] bill. The NRA and the NSSF jumped on board; ditto Gabby Giffords and Everytown-Moms. Well, almost everyone. The group which claims it's the only group standing between freedom and fascism, a.k.a. Gun Owners of America, told its members to demand that we stop trying to "fix an unconstitutional system" because background checks of any kind are an "infringement on 2nd-Amendment rights." -- Huffington Post, November 20, 2017
Almost everyone in Washington supports "Fix NICS" as a way of "doing something" to stop the type of shootings we've seen recently.
Of course, it won't stop shootings like that.
But now, it is very possible that the House will combine the "Fix NICS" legislation with the reciprocity bill.
Ultimately, Gun Owners of America prefers that Congress send a clean reciprocity bill to the President.
But if the House combines the two bills together, one of two things will happen.
First, combining the two bills could end up killing the Fix NICS legislation. As a stand-alone bill, because of the support of the NRA and many in the House leadership, Fix NICS has enough votes to pass VERY EASILY in the House and Senate.
But it is very likely that Democrats would oppose a combined bill and filibuster it in the Senate. For this reason, prominent Senate Republicans and Democrats oppose combining the two bills -- because they don't want to kill the Fix NICS legislation.
Second, there is the slight possibility that combining the two bills will help concealed reciprocity go to the President's desk.
As the situation stands now, Senate Democrats have enough votes to filibuster and kill reciprocity. But a combined bill might encourage some Red State Democrats to break from Schumer and vote "aye" on the bill.
Regardless of what happens, GOA's message to Capitol Hill remains the same -- we want concealed carry reciprocity; we don't want more gun control.
There is also this to read:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/12/03/h-r-38-and-h-r-4477/
No, I just prefer to look at the facts and make my own decisions. Not just go with "if so and so says X then it must be X"
Did you ever consider that these guys might be supporting a do nothing bill because they need to claim they are relevant and "doing something" in order to get the donations that pay them? Yes they will claim this as a great victory, even though there is bipartisan support and the bill (fix NCIS) does nothing more that add $125M and some civil accountability. But it will be promoted as a huge win on their fund raising tour.
BTW did I miss something or is GOA supporting combining the bills? "As the situation stands now, Senate Democrats have enough votes to filibuster and kill reciprocity. But a combined bill might encourage some Red State Democrats to break from Schumer and vote "aye" on the bill."
So Massie doesn't want them combined and GOA does and they are both pro 2a? I think I'll stick with looking at the facts and making my own decision.
The fact is that members of both parties have been known to screw gun owners over so it's good to pay attention and to be alert to other possibilities. No it seems you're misreading things or not reading them completely.GOA does not want them combined. Did you not read their statement that they don't support gun control. Regardless of what happens, GOA's message to Capitol Hill remains the same -- we want concealed carry reciprocity; we don't want more gun control. Has it ever occurred to you that govt. can't be trusted to do right by gun owners?
Did you read this: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2017/12/03/h-r-38-and-h-r-4477/
SO the NRA put out an alert about HR 38. They mentioned nothing about fix NICS being attached. Has there been any real indicators about the bills being combined ?
From the NRA:
Answering my own question:
http://docs.house.gov/floor/
H.R. 38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (Rules Committee Print 115-45—Showing the text of H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477 as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.) [PDF] [XML]
Added 12/01/2017 at 12:20 PM
:: H. Rept. 115-433—Report from the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H.R. 38 [PDF]
Added 12/04/2017 at 06:30 PM
:: H. Rept. 115-437—Report from the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H.R. 4477 [PDF]
Added 12/05/2017 at 12:15 PM
Not definitive, but seems to indicate they want to combine.
From the NRA:
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) will be up for a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday, December 6. Please contact your U.S. Representative TODAY and ask him/her to vote for H.R. 38!
Your fundamental right to keep and bear arms should not end at the state line. This bill would ensure that law-abiding citizens do not lose the ability to protect themselves when they travel from state to state. And it would ensure that anti-gun jurisdictions do not harass travelers for exercising their constitutional rights.
H.R. 38 DOES NOT:
Again, please IMMEDIATELY contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and via email, and urge him/her to vote for H.R. 38 on Wednesday, December 6!
- Allow prohibited persons to carry firearms;
- Create a federal licensing or registration system;
- Establish national standards for concealed carry; or
- Override state laws governing the time, place and manner of carrying concealed.
Thank you.
Answering my own question:
http://docs.house.gov/floor/
H.R. 38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (Rules Committee Print 115-45—Showing the text of H.R. 38 and H.R. 4477 as ordered reported by the Committee on the Judiciary.) [PDF] [XML]
Added 12/01/2017 at 12:20 PM
:: H. Rept. 115-433—Report from the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H.R. 38 [PDF]
Added 12/04/2017 at 06:30 PM
:: H. Rept. 115-437—Report from the Committee on the Judiciary to accompany H.R. 4477 [PDF]
Added 12/05/2017 at 12:15 PM
Not definitive, but seems to indicate they want to combine.
Last edited:
Link for live video of 2PM meeting on HR 38
https://rules.house.gov/video/rules-committee-hearing-hr-38-and-h-j-res-123
https://rules.house.gov/video/rules-committee-hearing-hr-38-and-h-j-res-123
Absolutely true
So I take it that they are referring to the bump stock BS that was added to HR4477, because there is no other additional controls in either bill. I see you point, I just think that if we fight all of it on this basis we're more likely to end up with just the bump stock restriction.
All the time, it's why I read the bills and watch the hearings (as much as I can). I prefer to go to the source and not get caught up in the internet and media hype.
I have now. To me it's a bit confusing who is providing which quotes, but content of the quotes is clear. So if I got the path by which the quote came incorrect, please forgive me.
The Military Arms’ Channel says "If you ever talked to your doctor about being depressed, you’re not able to own a firearm. If you have been diagnosed with ADHD, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm. Have you sought help with your finances before? You’re no longer eligible to own a firearm. Are you over 65? You may no longer be eligible to own a firearm. Hell, if you have an unpaid traffic ticket, you’re no longer eligible to buy a firearm under HR 4477." But all you need to do is read the bill and you can see that it make no such changes. In fact the bill specifically states that "The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code." and no changes are being made to those sections. So no new reporting requirement, The Military Arms’ Channel's statement is just plain wrong. In fact the bill requires the sources of information to verify the content to increase accuracy and reduce false delays/denials.
MachineHead
NES Member
Most of these people are absolute retards. There’s a lady who really thinks hat 10 year olds from WI willBe allowed to carry in NYC.
MachineHead
NES Member
This is also playing on C-SPAN 3. The Left is having a meltdown and Rep. McGovern is playing the role of the bleading heart.
Last edited:
Looks like my link above broke, try this:
https://rules.house.gov/video/rules-committee-hearing-hr-38
https://rules.house.gov/video/rules-committee-hearing-hr-38
I understand that you're going by the information you're looking at and that's good but I'm looking at more since govt. is full of back stabbers. Just because it says no new reporting requirement doesn't mean they'll abide by that. They tend to make their own rules which of course only apply to us and not to them. My posting is not to get people to panic but to get people to consider all information out there and to sort through it and make their decision from that.
I just finished the Rules Committee meeting video and Noreaster78 is absolutely correct they are now combined. For my own education where did this happen? The rules committee spoke about them being combined from the very beginning, but they left the Judiciary Committee as separate bills. The documentation hasn't caught up yet, so I'm only going with what was on the video.
I also noticed in the video of the Rules Committee, but I haven't seen the documents to confirm this, that the bump stock addition was reduced to a study, not the ban that was added to HR 4477. I can only assume (something I hate to do) that this happened when HR38 and HR4477 were combined. If this is correct, it should help with concerns about new gun restrictions, it was the only additional restriction in either bill.
(speculation warning) I wonder how these two things will affect support for the bills. They removed one item the Dems wanted, bump stock ban, and combined the other they wanted, Fix NICS, with Reciprocity. Will this kill any Dem support? Probably. On the other hand, I'm hoping there will still be enough Rep support to push the whole thing through. Fix NICS, now that the bump stock ban is gone (assuming that is correct) doesn't do anything other than spend $125m and allow for some accountability, but I know some are concerned it may be perverted to do more.
Or the whole thing could be butchered on the floor till it has no resemblance to what we have seen so far.
Politics: from the greek Poly meaning many, and ticks meaning small blood sucking insects.
Similar threads
