Why, doesn't it make perfect that a bill banning bump stocks would be added to a budget bill?
-
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.
Reciprocity gets out of committee - not sure if dupe
- Thread starter Ben Cartwright SASS
- Start date
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,362
- Likes
- 109,094
Looks like Dana Loesch has drunk the Kool Aid https://m.facebook.com/comment/repl...&gfid=AQDbJjeNgNfE7vR8&_rdr#10156000493682700
Because it's a big "f**k you" to the antis- if it looks like the bills going to fail (or get mired in negotiations that never end) then they tie it to something else so the whole thing sinks to the bottom of the ocean. It's called poison pilling., although this is a little different from the usual... It's more commonly done, however when the numbers of getting a vote through are a lot closer/tighter. For example, years ago when the PLCA was passed, the first iteration of it had an AWB renewal tacked onto it (by Swinestine, shocking!) but the NRA and others detected that, and got pissed, and it got voted down and punted, but then it reappeared without AWB renewal but only some minor concessions (bullshit about gun locks must be included with handguns, and suicide awareness bs or something) so then at that point it got passed. The problem with the way laws are made is that the entire process is very parasitic. There's all this gamesmanship BS that goes on where people attach shit to bills that doesn't belong there. Yeah, reciprocity would pass on its own... if it was actually important to Congress. The problem is half of the GOP is so f***ing ambivalent that it would be just as happy if it goes in the books as "another attempt" so they can say "well, we tried to do something", and then give us the limp wristed, glad handing treatment they are typical of.
-Mike
JayMcB
NES Member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
- Messages
- 22,362
- Likes
- 109,094
Welp, it looks like the bills are indeed combined. So if it passes we get a nationwide reciprocity bill that doesn't give us meaningful reciprocity, and adds the most gun control since the '94 AWB, with an 'unintended' consequences conduit for pretty much any gun owner to get on 'a list'.
allen-1
NES Member
Not trying to argue, but how are you seeing a lack of meaningful reciprocity? Because I'm not seeing that.
What I'm seeing is that because I have a permit, I would be able to carry my firearm in every other state, according to that state's laws. Currently I can carry in something like 35 states according to their laws, but I do so using one of half-a-dozen permits. This would allow me to carry everywhere on my single resident permit.
In a number of the states that I carry in I'm restricted by their laws. For example in South Carolina there's a "must notify" law. In Connecticut I have to use "low capacity" magazines and registered or pre-ban AR's. None of that's going to change no matter what permit I carry a firearm on.
What do you see differently?
Am I correct that you meant HR 4477 and not NR 4077 Honest Ads Act. I've been accused of being too harsh and I don't want it said I put word in anyone's mouth.
OK, lots of amendments were made and defeated.
I'm trying to be polite, so please point out the major gun control included in the bills as they exist right now. I'm not saying things couldn't change on the floor, that's always possible with any bill, but as they exist there are no additional limitations and the committees have been clear that they do not support any additions. I get that you don't like anything involving and Dems, and it certainly makes me suspicious, but the bill says what it says regardless of who is involved, and there are Reps supporting it as well.
The rules committee reported the bump stock addition to HR 4477 was reduced to a study, I haven't see that in the bill yet, but it was said several times so for now I'm going with that. Was it the bump stock ban you were referring to?
Lokdog
NES Member
C-SPAN is saying the vote is to be today at approx. 1:45pm on the concealed carry gun bill debate rules, whatever that means
They are bitching back and forth now. http://clerk.house.gov/houselive-popup.aspx
Ben Cartwright SASS
NES Member
What is he saying "we don't want some unwashed rednecks carrying in Massachusettstan?
MachineHead
NES Member
Just tuned in to C-SPAN. Rep Hastings needs for his laxative to kick in.
Lokdog
NES Member
Everyone of the Dems. that oppose keep bringing up Texas & Las Vegas, which has jack shit to do w/ CCW permit holders & the fact that it makes it a headache for cops. Um, no, it would be on the permit holders to know that states laws. Idiots
allen-1
NES Member
I just tuned in, Collins from Georgia is up.
And he's starting up by talking about Constitutional Rights.
And calling out hypocrisy.
He just said he's a concealed carrier permit.
Oh jfc - that cckcker from texas jus called for Trump's impeachment.
And he's starting up by talking about Constitutional Rights.
And calling out hypocrisy.
He just said he's a concealed carrier permit.
Oh jfc - that cckcker from texas jus called for Trump's impeachment.
The clam is the clerk.
ETA: she should read who submitted it at the end of her reading.
allen-1
NES Member
Texas. She's just reading his bill.
A clerk. Not sure who drafted the article.
--- LOL, 3 overlapping answers all at the same time ( i lost )
MachineHead
NES Member
Looks like she’s just a reading clerk reading that for someone else who didn’t have balls enough
To read it themselves. Although she’s no looker like the girl from the House Committee the other day, this is pure comedy.
To read it themselves. Although she’s no looker like the girl from the House Committee the other day, this is pure comedy.
allen-1
NES Member
I was watching this, htf did a discussion about gun control turn into a motion for impeachment
They are just combining voting times:
12:30:52 P.M. H. Res. 645 Considered as privileged matter. H. Res. 645 — "Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 38) to amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a means by which nonresidents of a State whose residents may carry concealed firearms may also do so in the State."
12:32:15 P.M. H. Res. 645 DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 645.
1:33:33 P.M. H. Res. 645 POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H. Res. 645, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Hastings demanded the yeas and nays, and the Chair postponed further proceedings on the question of ordering the previous question until later in the legislative day.
