Democrats promise to filibuster national reciprocity in Senate

[Charles L. Cotton]

Eg....
The left states will never agree to this but to get enough on board lets give them say.
1.no larger then a .380 with fmj
2.no more then 8 rounds.
3.no spare mags

See where this goes 5 more years oh a .380 is to much power now .22 etc..... and soon we got spit wad shooters.

It's passed by Congress, not states. No, this is not where "this goes 5 more years . . ." As I noted in another post, nothing stops anti-gunners from trying pass your ".380 law" now. It would fail, but nothing prevents the attempt, other than the fact that they know it would fail.

BTW, do you know of any state that currently limits handguns to .380ACP caliber or smaller? If not, why hasn't this passed in California, New Jersey or somewhere else?

Chas.

but....to his larger point,
what does happen, if, or when, republicans don't have a majority in either or both of the chambers, nothing would fail then, it could be changed, it could be amended.....see Obama Care and the plans Republicans have for that. Either get this passed with tons of protections or make it go away and leave it to the states.
personally, I don't think California is going to care for Texans carrying in their state....they are going to want things written into the law.
What is going to have to be given up for a law that a lot of gun carriers don't care about? It's not that difficult to do the research thanks to various websites and apps. There are other things that political capital can, and probably should, be spent on.

His larger point is groundless.

Do you contend that anti-gun, anti-carry legislation could not be introduce in the future, unless national reciprocity passes now? Remember, Hillary called for a national ban on concealed-carry and she would have had a Democrat introduce such legislation, if she had been elected. She would have done so without an existing national reciprocity.

You mention "amending" national reciprocity. That requires a new bill and that's no easier to pass than a stand-alone anti-gun bill.

Chas.

Groundless like the EPA, BATFE, BLM ...etc my fears are it will grow into endless regulations not laws. Once a bureaucracy is created it's hard to destroy. I may very well be wrong but if protections are not put into place it will grow and grow and grow.

Yes, groundless in keeping with your Chicken Little approach to virtually every single bill, other than unlicensed carry. Tell me of a single state that has a .380ACP limit on citizen-owned handguns like you stated in your dire prediction. I'll save you some time, there isn't one and you know it.

EPA, BATFE and BLM are regulatory agencies and Liberty did a good job of covering that issue. The national reciprocity bill does not give regulatory authority to any federal agency, so this comparison is as groundless as well. If the NRA-backed national reciprocity bill were to be amended to grant regulatory authority, then we'd kill our own bill.

Chas.

A. It is a example.
B. Really, open carry, where did that come from, unless your just trying to throw me in with a bunch that is scoffed at here. For the record I dont open carry an have no plans to.

Maybe instead of adding new law we should try to repeal laws that restrict us. Funny new laws to regain our rights.

A. You gave examples of regulatory agencies that have no bearing on national reciprocity.
B. You are never satisfied with any bill we file to advance Second Amendment rights, unless it repeals all existing gun laws.

You have a great idea about repealing current federal gun laws. Why don't you do just that, while the NRA works on improving what we have now. Perhaps you know a secret that we don't. You must, otherwise you wouldn't make such sweeping statements. Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises.

You represent a small segment of gun owners who shun improvement while demanding perfection. You ridicule people and organizations that actually work for gun owners. Your attitude is always negative and quite frankly, it's getting quite old. Take it somewhere else.

Chas.

[suthdj]

Eg....
The left states will never agree to this but to get enough on board lets give them say.
1.no larger then a .380 with fmj
2.no more then 8 rounds.
3.no spare mags

See where this goes 5 more years oh a .380 is to much power now .22 etc..... and soon we got spit wad shooters.

It's passed by Congress, not states. No, this is not where "this goes 5 more years . . ." As I noted in another post, nothing stops anti-gunners from trying pass your ".380 law" now. It would fail, but nothing prevents the attempt, other than the fact that they know it would fail.

BTW, do you know of any state that currently limits handguns to .380ACP caliber or smaller? If not, why hasn't this passed in California, New Jersey or somewhere else?

Chas.

but....to his larger point,
what does happen, if, or when, republicans don't have a majority in either or both of the chambers, nothing would fail then, it could be changed, it could be amended.....see Obama Care and the plans Republicans have for that. Either get this passed with tons of protections or make it go away and leave it to the states.
personally, I don't think California is going to care for Texans carrying in their state....they are going to want things written into the law.
What is going to have to be given up for a law that a lot of gun carriers don't care about? It's not that difficult to do the research thanks to various websites and apps. There are other things that political capital can, and probably should, be spent on.

His larger point is groundless.

Do you contend that anti-gun, anti-carry legislation could not be introduce in the future, unless national reciprocity passes now? Remember, Hillary called for a national ban on concealed-carry and she would have had a Democrat introduce such legislation, if she had been elected. She would have done so without an existing national reciprocity.

You mention "amending" national reciprocity. That requires a new bill and that's no easier to pass than a stand-alone anti-gun bill.

Chas.

Groundless like the EPA, BATFE, BLM ...etc my fears are it will grow into endless regulations not laws. Once a bureaucracy is created it's hard to destroy. I may very well be wrong but if protections are not put into place it will grow and grow and grow.

Yes, groundless in keeping with your Chicken Little approach to virtually every single bill, other than unlicensed carry. Tell me of a single state that has a .380ACP limit on citizen-owned handguns like you stated in your dire prediction. I'll save you some time, there isn't one and you know it.

EPA, BATFE and BLM are regulatory agencies and Liberty did a good job of covering that issue. The national reciprocity bill does not give regulatory authority to any federal agency, so this comparison is as groundless as well. If the NRA-backed national reciprocity bill were to be amended to grant regulatory authority, then we'd kill our own bill.u

Chas.

A. It is a example.
B. Really, open carry, where did that come from, unless your just trying to throw me in with a bunch that is scoffed at here. For the record I dont open carry an have no plans to.

Maybe instead of adding new law we should try to repeal laws that restrict us. Funny new laws to regain our rights.

A. You gave examples of regulatory agencies that have no bearing on national reciprocity.
B. You are never satisfied with any bill we file to advance Second Amendment rights, unless it repeals all existing gun laws.

You have a great idea about repealing current federal gun laws. Why don't you do just that, while the NRA works on improving what we have now. Perhaps you know a secret that we don't. You must, otherwise you wouldn't make such sweeping statements. Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises.

You represent a small segment of gun owners who shun improvement while demanding perfection. You ridicule people and organizations that actually work for gun owners. Your attitude is always negative and quite frankly, it's getting quite old. Take it somewhere else.

Chas.

Bold statements, please back them up with some quotes on my mostly negative comments if you can find any. I am generally snarky at best an i dont recall ever criticising any one.
I dont shun impovment I shun adding more lead patches to a sinking boat. I would love to remove laws please tell me how without me needing a law degree, millions of dollars an a few politicians in my pocket. We got to this point by creating an tolerating law after law being created by well intended people. Remember the saying about a road being paved with good intentions.

We disagree on this topic. I am not saying I dont like the idea I am saying I dont trust the idea.

[TreyHouston]

"Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises." Chas

I am going to make this my signature line!!!!!

[TreyHouston]

HA! I love it! (if it is cool with Charles)

[mr1337]

The way I see it, part of the Federal government's job is to make sure the states are honoring the federal Constitution. The 2nd Amendment includes keeping and bearing arms. If states are having a problem with implementing a system that allows all Americans to bear arms within their state, the feds need to step in.

I'm all for states rights, but when states restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens, that's where my support of states rights stops.

[suthdj]

The way I see it, part of the Federal government's job is to make sure the states are honoring the federal Constitution. The 2nd Amendment includes keeping and bearing arms. If states are having a problem with implementing a system that allows all Americans to bear arms within their state, the feds need to step in.

I'm all for states rights, but when states restrict the Constitutional rights of citizens, that's where my support of states rights stops.

Correct but is it better to make more laws changing laws or just have the current laws nullified. We got into the mess we're in because of all the laws.

Here is a story of the ATF, granted it is from ctd so take with a grain of salt or google it

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/atf-here/

[Liberty]

Correct but is it better to make more laws changing laws or just have the current laws nullified. We got into the mess we're in because of all the laws.

Here is a story of the ATF, granted it is from ctd so take with a grain of salt or google it

http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/atf-here/

The only way to nullify any law is to make new laws that will nullify the old ones in other words ,"laws changing laws". Removing some of these laws may be a great idea, but I don't understand why new laws ensuring us of more rights is a bad thing. It's not an either/ or thing. We are in the process of attempting to remove restrictions on noise suppressors. In the meantime some of the things I hope that get pushed through is eliminating gun bans on Government public property. Such as Corp. of Engineers and Post Offices. all of these things will still be subject to state laws and rules.

Remember we did get National parks removed from the restricted list, under Obama yet.

[mr1337]

There's a few ways to nullify laws:

1. Create new laws removing the prior laws (Legislative)
2. Have a court declare the laws unconstitutional (Judicial)
3. Choose not to enforce the laws (Executive)
4. Refuse to convict people charged with the laws (Jury Nullification)

I think that's it, but I may have missed some ways.

[Liberty]

There's a few ways to nullify laws:

1. Create new laws removing the prior laws (Legislative)
2. Have a court declare the laws unconstitutional (Judicial)
3. Choose not to enforce the laws (Executive)
4. Refuse to convict people charged with the laws (Jury Nullification)

I think that's it, but I may have missed some ways.

You are right, i should have said :the only reliable and effective way.
2 is a great way if the law is illegal in itself.
3 is not a reliable way in the long run, any future admin can invoke at whim.
4 Jury nullification rarely happens.. Jury selection these days is pretty good at weeding out "troublemakers"

[RoyGBiv]

I didn't find link to the actual Bills in this thread... so...
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015032 ... egislation

Worth noting that these Bills, which the NRA has voiced support for, are from the previous Congress and will need to be re-filed for the new session.

[ScottDLS]

I'm still of the opinion that Federal gun laws are not compatible with Federalism and States' rights. By interfering with States' handgun licensing regulations, the Feds are further inserting themselves into criminal law and gun regulation which they arguably have no Constitutional authority to do. Take the example of Illinois. In MacDonald[...SCOTUS overruled Chicago laws against handgun possession on 2nd and 14th amendment grounds. Congress did not pass a law overriding Illinois' authority to regulate handgun carry. However, in Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS still says the States retain the rights to regulate carry, but not to prohibit altogether. In the case of Illinois, an appeals court found their lack of a handgun carry licensing law to be unconstitutional infringement. They said either the Illinois Legislature could craft one (which they did) or their existing laws would be void ("Constitutional" Carry).

What the court did not do was apply a Federal law to override local licensing. Almost every time the Federal government has gotten involved in gun regulation they have added more unconstitutional restrictions on what should have been left to the states.

NFA 1934 - Used taxing authority to federally register/regulate certain firearms.
GCA 1968 - Used supposed "interstate commerce" authority to regulate sale and possession of firearms and regulate dealers.
FOPA 1986 - Loosened some GCA regulations on ammunition sales, interstate sale of rifles, and dealer regulation. Allowed for transportation of firearms across state lines (arguably Constitutional exercise of interstate commerce authority) and banned possession of machine guns by "civilians" (unconstitutional).
GFSZA 1990 - Made possession of guns in school zones a federal crime, ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Lopez. Congress re-passed with minor changes to insert "interstate commerce language".

Crime Bill 1994 - Banned manufacture and sale of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" over 10 rd to "civilians". Expired in 2004.

Violence Against Women Act - Retroactively made certain State misdemeanors lifetime Federal bars to firearm ownership.

Brady Law - Implemented waiting period for handgun purchase, background checks, and eventually after court challenges was updated to create NICS process.

2004 - LEOSA - Overrode State laws on Firearms possession for out of State LEO's on non-official business. Arguably unconstitutional.

2007 - Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act - Prohibited certain lawsuits against Federal gun manufacturers or dealers for lawful sales of non-defective guns. I like this one, but some trial lawyers will argue that it unconstitutionally takes away people's rights to pursue lawsuits authorized by State law.

So for 82 years, almost every firearms law that has come out of the Feds has taken away more rights that we had. Even FOPA '86 got us very little in return for an unrepealable machine gun ban.

Rather than expanding existing Federal power with a "reciprocity" law, I would prefer to see repeal or reduction of existing laws. Politically, giving up Federal power by repealing or changing existing laws doesn't sound as good as making new laws, but EVERY new federal law further encroaches on States prerogatives. Really all the action in the positive direction in the last 30 years has been at the State level and the Feds have only served to limit what the states could do.

[ralewis]

Eg....
The left states will never agree to this but to get enough on board lets give them say.
1.no larger then a .380 with fmj
2.no more then 8 rounds.
3.no spare mags

See where this goes 5 more years oh a .380 is to much power now .22 etc..... and soon we got spit wad shooters.

It's passed by Congress, not states. No, this is not where "this goes 5 more years . . ." As I noted in another post, nothing stops anti-gunners from trying pass your ".380 law" now. It would fail, but nothing prevents the attempt, other than the fact that they know it would fail.

BTW, do you know of any state that currently limits handguns to .380ACP caliber or smaller? If not, why hasn't this passed in California, New Jersey or somewhere else?

Chas.

but....to his larger point,
what does happen, if, or when, republicans don't have a majority in either or both of the chambers, nothing would fail then, it could be changed, it could be amended.....see Obama Care and the plans Republicans have for that. Either get this passed with tons of protections or make it go away and leave it to the states.
personally, I don't think California is going to care for Texans carrying in their state....they are going to want things written into the law.
What is going to have to be given up for a law that a lot of gun carriers don't care about? It's not that difficult to do the research thanks to various websites and apps. There are other things that political capital can, and probably should, be spent on.

His larger point is groundless.

Do you contend that anti-gun, anti-carry legislation could not be introduce in the future, unless national reciprocity passes now? Remember, Hillary called for a national ban on concealed-carry and she would have had a Democrat introduce such legislation, if she had been elected. She would have done so without an existing national reciprocity.

You mention "amending" national reciprocity. That requires a new bill and that's no easier to pass than a stand-alone anti-gun bill.

Chas.

Groundless like the EPA, BATFE, BLM ...etc my fears are it will grow into endless regulations not laws. Once a bureaucracy is created it's hard to destroy. I may very well be wrong but if protections are not put into place it will grow and grow and grow.

Yes, groundless in keeping with your Chicken Little approach to virtually every single bill, other than unlicensed carry. Tell me of a single state that has a .380ACP limit on citizen-owned handguns like you stated in your dire prediction. I'll save you some time, there isn't one and you know it.

EPA, BATFE and BLM are regulatory agencies and Liberty did a good job of covering that issue. The national reciprocity bill does not give regulatory authority to any federal agency, so this comparison is as groundless as well. If the NRA-backed national reciprocity bill were to be amended to grant regulatory authority, then we'd kill our own bill.u

Chas.

A. It is a example.
B. Really, open carry, where did that come from, unless your just trying to throw me in with a bunch that is scoffed at here. For the record I dont open carry an have no plans to.

Maybe instead of adding new law we should try to repeal laws that restrict us. Funny new laws to regain our rights.

A. You gave examples of regulatory agencies that have no bearing on national reciprocity.
B. You are never satisfied with any bill we file to advance Second Amendment rights, unless it repeals all existing gun laws.

You have a great idea about repealing current federal gun laws. Why don't you do just that, while the NRA works on improving what we have now. Perhaps you know a secret that we don't. You must, otherwise you wouldn't make such sweeping statements. Jump in there sport, get it done and we'll all sing your praises.

You represent a small segment of gun owners who shun improvement while demanding perfection. You ridicule people and organizations that actually work for gun owners. Your attitude is always negative and quite frankly, it's getting quite old. Take it somewhere else.

Chas.

Bold statements, please back them up with some quotes on my mostly negative comments if you can find any. I am generally snarky at best an i dont recall ever criticising any one.
I dont shun impovment I shun adding more lead patches to a sinking boat. I would love to remove laws please tell me how without me needing a law degree, millions of dollars an a few politicians in my pocket. We got to this point by creating an tolerating law after law being created by well intended people. Remember the saying about a road being paved with good intentions.

We disagree on this topic. I am not saying I dont like the idea I am saying I dont trust the idea.

By boat i assume you mean the state and trend of firearms legislation or restrictions in general? If that's what you mean, I don't understand how you see this as a sinking boat. The libs are at historic lows in the States (governors and legislatures), they took a pounding at the National level a month ago, Dem Senators are in a precarious situation for the next mid-terms, we are going to have a President who is is almost certainly going to be able to ensure the Supreme Court isn't a threat to 2A issues, and an expanding reciprocity web among the states has already solved about 75% of the national reciprocity problem. Seems the concept of National Reciprocity is yet another incremental step in ensuring we get the result we want.

The holy grail of constitutional carry (eliminating all gun laws) isn't respective of the political realities. It's a fun bar conversation, but that's not the way the world works.

[steveincowtown]

We need a supreme court ruling, not another law.

"if States are required by the Constitution to issue handgun licenses, the justifications for refusing to recognize those licenses elsewhere is undermined."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Majority Ruling (except I switched gay marriage to handgun license).

[TreyHouston]

We need a supreme court ruling, not another law.

"if States are required by the Constitution to issue handgun licenses, the justifications for refusing to recognize those licenses elsewhere is undermined."

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy Majority Ruling (except I switched gay marriage to handgun license).

whats good for one minority group is good for another, right?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm still of the opinion that Federal gun laws are not compatible with Federalism and States' rights. By interfering with States' handgun licensing regulations, the Feds are further inserting themselves into criminal law and gun regulation which they arguably have no Constitutional authority to do. Take the example of Illinois. In MacDonald[...SCOTUS overruled Chicago laws against handgun possession on 2nd and 14th amendment grounds. Congress did not pass a law overriding Illinois' authority to regulate handgun carry. However, in Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS still says the States retain the rights to regulate carry, but not to prohibit altogether. In the case of Illinois, an appeals court found their lack of a handgun carry licensing law to be unconstitutional infringement. They said either the Illinois Legislature could craft one (which they did) or there existing laws would be void ("Constitutional" Carry).

What the court did not do was apply a Federal law to override local licensing. Almost every time the Federal government has gotten involved in gun regulation they have added more unconstitutional restrictions on what should have been left to the states.

NFA 1934 - Used taxing authority to federally register/regulate certain firearms.
GCA 1968 - Used supposed "interstate commerce" authority to regulate sale and possession of firearms and regulate dealers.
FOPA 1986 - Loosened some GCA regulations on ammunition sales, interstate sale of rifles, and dealer regulation. Allowed for transportation of firearms across state lines (arguably Constitutional exercise of interstate commerce authority) and banned possession of machine guns by "civilians" (unconstitutional).
GFSZA 1990 - Made possession of guns in school zones a federal crime, ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS in Lopez. Congress re-passed with minor changes to insert "interstate commerce language".

Crime Bill 1994 - Banned manufacture and sale of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" over 10 rd to "civilians". Expired in 2004.

Violence Against Women Act - Retroactively made certain State misdemeanors lifetime Federal bars to firearm ownership.

Brady Law - Implemented waiting period for handgun purchase, background checks, and eventually after court challenges was updated to create NICS process.

2004 - LEOSA - Overrode State laws on Firearms possession for out of State LEO's on non-official business. Arguably unconstitutional.

2007 - Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act - Prohibited certain lawsuits against Federal gun manufacturers or dealers for lawful sales of non-defective guns. I like this one, but some trial lawyers will argue that it unconstitutionally takes away people's rights to pursue lawsuits authorized by State law.

So for 82 years, almost every firearms law that has come out of the Feds has taken away more rights that we had. Even FOPA '86 got us very little in return for an unrepealable machine gun ban.

Rather than expanding existing Federal power with a "reciprocity" law, I would prefer to see repeal or reduction of existing laws. Politically, giving up Federal power by repealing or changing existing laws doesn't sound as good as making new laws, but EVERY new federal law further encroaches on States prerogatives. Really all the action in the positive direction in the last 30 years has been at the State level and the Feds have only served to limit what the states could do.

I agree in theory with almost everything you wrote, except for FOPA. You couldn't be more wrong on that issue. Millions of people can and do transport firearms across the country without fear of arrest, prosecution and imprisonment solely because of FOPA. You also ignore other pro-gun legislation like the Lawful Commence in Arms Act that saved the firearms industry, the Emergency Powers Act that prevents a repeat of New Orleans style confiscation, and amendments to the banking bill that allows millions of Americans to possess firearms in National Parks, just to name three.

Again, I agree with your overall analysis for the most part. However, you appear to believe there are two viable alternatives: 1) pass national reciprocity; or 2) repeal federal gun laws. Number 2 is a non-starter, regardless how strongly you or I feel about the constitutionality of federal gun laws. Half of the country voted for Hillary Clinton knowing she would appoint Supreme Court Justices that would relegate the Second Amendment to a historical footnote. She also campaigned on a federal law to prohibit concealed-carry nationwide. I repeat -- half of voting Americans supported her knowing her anti-gun policies! These folks lost the Presidential election, but they send Senators and Congressmen to Washington and we have to deal with them and their constituents. I'm not saying that everyone who voted for Hillary supports gun control. However, voting for her knowing her outright contempt for the Second Amendment at least indicates her supporters don't hold gun rights in high regard.

Here is a cold dose of reality. Federal gun laws are not going to be repealed in the foreseeable future, at least not to the extent you suggest. I would love to see that come to pass, but it's not going to happen. I want to see the NFA repealed, but that's not possible. What is possible is to remove suppressors from it's provisions, then work on removing SBRs and SBSs as well. We will not be able to repeal the unconstitutional Violence Against Women Act because opponents would scream that "gun owners want to be able to beat women!" It is possible to amend it to remove misdemeanor convictions from the scope of this law. I would like to see the GCA '68 repealed in total, but that's not going to happen. It is possible to remove the ban on purchasing handguns outside one's home state. It's also possible to amend the federal GFSZA such that 1) it becomes a penalty enhancement provision as it is in Texas, rather than a stand-alone offense; or 2) exempt from its provisions people carrying a handgun on and out-of-state license. These are merely examples of significant improvements we can make by amending current federal laws. It's not a perfect plan, but it is feasible whereas the alternative is not.

Don't shun improvement while demanding perfection you will never achieve.
Chas.