-
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***
Reciprocity gets out of committee - not sure if dupe
- Thread starter Ben Cartwright SASS
- Start date
MachineHead
NES Member
This is what liberals are drooling over. They can’t wait for someone to get stupid. I wasn’t too sure about this bill seeing the light of day, but I guess it’s tied to the “Fix NICS” bill and that bill has bipartisan support up the wazoo.
Well, it has wording dealing with ammo so states can't use that, although it does say on a mag (I see an increase in the number of spare mags non-residents carry). And it has provisions to hold the state authorities accountable, so that's good. It's strictly handguns so it won't come up against any AWB. Could cause confusion over mag capacities, which haven't really been enforced as a stand alone charge in MA, this could change.
Could this really happen?
Could this really happen?
MachineHead
NES Member
Start watching this to see the actual exchange of idiots and those who support this bill. I’ve never seen anything like it.
View: https://youtu.be/RmkRZvw7yFw
I’ve got to hand it to Rep. Goodlatte for keeping a straight face during this session. The people opposing this bill in the video have clearly never read a 4473.
I'm at 2:47:00 in the video. It's amazing what the opponents don't know about the current law.
And Ms. Jackson Lee it's not "pacific" it's "specific".
I also find it ridiculous the number of committee members that are not there. Their pay should be docked when they don't show doe formal sessions.
Now at 2:54:00 and they are considering an amendment that would prevent a resident from a state from using a non-resident permit from another state in their home state. I know this amendment failed, but it's important to note this discussion and proposed amendment since, when this is challenged, it shows what the intent of Congress was (assuming the bill passes). 8 to 17 amendment fails.
And Ms. Jackson Lee it's not "pacific" it's "specific".
I also find it ridiculous the number of committee members that are not there. Their pay should be docked when they don't show doe formal sessions.
Now at 2:54:00 and they are considering an amendment that would prevent a resident from a state from using a non-resident permit from another state in their home state. I know this amendment failed, but it's important to note this discussion and proposed amendment since, when this is challenged, it shows what the intent of Congress was (assuming the bill passes). 8 to 17 amendment fails.
MachineHead
NES Member
It gets better and better. They take the Dems to task on everything. They should make a game out of the times the Rep from California says “in my home state of California” lol.
What bothered me about Rep. Jackson Lee’s intro was how she brushed off any references to 18 USC and other USCs that anyone would bring up as menial speed bumps. It’s like she wanted to rule by emotion and overlook actual law. This says a lot coming from a rep who suddenly has concern for police safety and recently took a knee in the House protesting the police.
The Rep with the wool on his head and Cicilline have mini-meltdowns throughout and it shows their true intentions. Overall, the Dems try to create new crimes and restrictions that are covered in other parts of the law.
What bothered me about Rep. Jackson Lee’s intro was how she brushed off any references to 18 USC and other USCs that anyone would bring up as menial speed bumps. It’s like she wanted to rule by emotion and overlook actual law. This says a lot coming from a rep who suddenly has concern for police safety and recently took a knee in the House protesting the police.
The Rep with the wool on his head and Cicilline have mini-meltdowns throughout and it shows their true intentions. Overall, the Dems try to create new crimes and restrictions that are covered in other parts of the law.
MachineHead
NES Member
This legislation may not be the perfect win. This legislation may have flaws. But it is a WIN and should be supported by gun owners! It's time to stop declaring defeat when we win something - seize this victory and move on to the next one! Conquer, consolidate gains, and conquer again. Conservatives have failed to conserve anything for too long; it's time to start being proactive and this piece of legislation does just that: it secures your individual right to keep and bear arms across the nation regardless of which state you come from. The moonbats are shrieking about it and that alone makes it worthy of support.
Napoleon “won” all the way to Moscow. It was still a strategic defeat.
I’m not saying this isn’t necessarily a win. You, though, should admit it’s not necessarily a loss, in the long run.
I had a concern about standard cap mags carried under non-res permits in MA. I had thought MA would still be able to enforce mag limits. But an amendment with the discussion ending at 3:45:00, and failed, pointed out that since a magazine is included in the definition of handgun in this bill. Thus, if the bill passes, carrying with a standard cap mag(s), with an out of state permit, or with a non-resident permit in another state (which does not restrict mag cap) would no longer be illegal. Yes, that means a MA resident, with a NH non-resident could posses standard cap mags. Couldn't buy them in MA, but that's easy to deal with.
Again this assumes the bill actually passes.
I think knowing, and being able to prove, the intent of Congress is going to be key when this comes to court. Fortunately, today, with all the recording available it's far easier to show this as the debate is easier to review.
But what do I know IANAL.
Again this assumes the bill actually passes.
I think knowing, and being able to prove, the intent of Congress is going to be key when this comes to court. Fortunately, today, with all the recording available it's far easier to show this as the debate is easier to review.
But what do I know IANAL.
MachineHead
NES Member
This bill is absolutely far from perfect, but the cost of seeing Chuck, Nancy, Maura, Cuomo, the Moms, Everyclown, Giffords, et al. lose their shit is priceless.
However, even if it passes, I see these idiots taking this law to court.
However, even if it passes, I see these idiots taking this law to court.
This is exactly the hand-wringing I'm talking about. In your analogy, gun owners are Moscow. This is America, the 2A is (was) the law of the land, and the liberals and their foreign imports are the interlopers. If this legislation is weaponized against gun owners it's not the fault of the legislation, it's demographics (see Virginia's gubernatorial election) and part of a larger issue that this legislation has no direct bearing on. The morale impact of this legislation outweighs any flaws. It needs to be supported, passed, and shoved in liberal faces to demoralize their voters.
If your objection is just because it's Fed, I'm going to have to disagree with you.
If your concern is "something will change to make it bad" I'd have to say until that happens I'll have to disagree with you.
If your concern is that it doesn't give us everything, so we should oppose it completely, I would still disagree with you, this isn't ever going to be an all or nothing game.
Again, this is a step in the right direction. It sets a low bar for carry that is very consistent with fed law regarding 2a. Once the dust settles, maybe in a couple years, we can go back and go for full fed con carry. This will be helped by the outcome of this bill not resulting in the anarchy of violence the opposition are predicting. This bill is the compromise everyone is always saying they want. The anti-2a crowd didn't get where they are in one move, and we need to correct the problem one step at a time.
You may not like, what you call fed overreach, which certainly does occur, but this is the Fed recovering 2a rights. This was even stated as part of the goal by one member of the Judicial Committee (I think it was Mr. King). Let's take the positive steps when we can.
strangenh
NES Member
No, a non-res license is only effective under the proposed law if it would allow the holder to carry in their home state (or their home state needs no license), which a NH non-res won't in MA. ("and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides")
There's probably a solid argument that, while not normally applicable to silly gun licenses, that the full faith and credit clause in the constitution permits this. We already do it with shit like marriage licenses, etc. A "gun license" as a legal proceeding is functionally not any different.
-Mike
Not happening (on what grounds, they going to throw a temper tantrum?) SCOTUS etc is loathe to take poorly formed cases, particularly not ones on stuff like RKBA. Assuming long odds of it passing succeed, gun owners are going to have to take "them" to court, because the shithole states are going to double down on the stupid, as I described earlier.
-Mike
Keep in mind that the house and senate versions of the bill contain amendments sponsored by the aforementioned Chuck and Nancy to the Brady Bill. How come when the dems shove things through, Republicans get nothing, and when Republicans put things through democrats still manage to get a slice of the pie? The house and senate republican leadership should just change their party affiliation already
You are incorrect. This was addressed in interviews with the original sponsor of the bill, it was also covered in the Judiciary Committee, where it was repeatedly brought up. Further, from the bill:
"and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides," (emphasis added), which makes it clear that the permit can be from any state and is not required to be the person's state of residence.
This was brought up repeatedly in the committee discussion as it would allow people to "shop around" (according to bill opponents) for a permit when their home state would not issue one.
Add to this that magazines and ammo are defined as handguns fpor the purpose of this bill, and you also get standard cap mags on a non-res NH permit when you MA permit wouldn't allow for it.
This does, of course, assume this survives through passage of the bill.
As usual IANAL
Based on the fact that they are already mixing feces into the bill, my guess is that by the time it passes it will be nearly useless for actually carrying in anti states, it will not have the "loophole" that allows for shopping around for permits, and it will certainly not circumvent state magazine capacity bans. Do you not care for the children at all?
strangenh
NES Member
I get where you and committee people are coming from. No commas are the problem. I don't read it as guaranteed to be read by courts as open as that, and that language is definitely not dispositive of your position. The discussion in the hearings you're talking about has to do with, I think, states that actually recognize some non-res licenses. In PA, for example, which recognizes many states' non-res licenses, a resident who doesn't get a PA license can "shop around" for a state that is recognized (non-res) by PA, and will issue. Probably even more an issue in Michigan. I do not think a NH license would pull that off in MA under this language. I wouldn't want to be that test case, and I wouldn't advise someone to be. Someone answering committee questions does not magically change statutory interpretation (legislative history is the last item looked at if 'plain language' rules fail).
You:
and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides)
Possible:
and who (is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm) or (is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides)
The latter makes sense if the sentence is intended to capture con carry states without need of 'optional' license.
I don't like this bill for con law reasons, but its wording is in serious need of surgery. I'm surprised it made it this far without someone cleaning that up.
You:
and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm (or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides)
Possible:
and who (is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm) or (is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides)
The latter makes sense if the sentence is intended to capture con carry states without need of 'optional' license.
I don't like this bill for con law reasons, but its wording is in serious need of surgery. I'm surprised it made it this far without someone cleaning that up.
Don't be surprised, they leave bills so poorly worded on purpose expressly so courts can twist the meaning. That way anti states get to keep doing what they want and Republicans can say that they tried and shrug their shoulders.
strangenh
NES Member
Totally. I don't see that going "our way" in the anti- states. Thus my "wouldn't want to be a test case" feeling. The "if we have to, we'll take yours, but we still want to deny our own people" feeling is intense in Philly, Boston, Chicago, SF...
Which could easily be spun as racist and classist city officials discriminating against poor people and minorities in minority majority cities with vast income inequality. Gun control is openly racist. Call officials on it and make them have to defend the indefensible.
