Democrats promise to filibuster national reciprocity in Senate

[RoyGBiv]

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

There was a famous British guy that said something similar....

[ScottDLS]

...
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 Federal gun laws are not going to be repealed in the foreseeable future, at least not to the extent you suggest.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 I want to see the NFA repealed, but that's not possible.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 I would like to see the GCA '68 repealed in total, but that's not going to happen.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.

I agree with you on these points, however I don't think I was presenting a binary choice. Obviously, we're not going to get rid of all the Federal encroachments on State authority in one fell swoop. My only point of contention with a Federal Reciprocity measure is injecting the Federal government into the state regulatory regime of handgun licensing. It could easily be a mechanism for poison pills like 922o machine gun ban in FOPA, which some say was supposed to kill the whole measure. It would seem difficult to craft a federal reciprocity bill that didn't impose additional burdens on some States' residents, or further regulate where someone can and can't carry WITHIN a given State. Also, what about Vermont residents...? Do they get reciprocity to some extent even though their state doesn't issue permits?

To follow up on what I'd like to see the NRA and other pro-gun groups do at the Federal level is: Work on piecemeal repeal of what is practical, as you suggested. Also, to act in areas where there is already clear Federal Constitutional authority. Here are some additional thoughts based on what you already mentioned for the NRA and other pro-gun groups.

- Make a felony requirement for domestic violence convictions....that's essentially repeal.
- FOPA travel arguably is codifying what is already protected by the Second and 14th Amendments, and in Article II...interstate transportation and commerce in firearms. SO lets work on expansion of this provision perhaps to cover airports and clarify journeys which it covers and intermediate stops.
- Expansion of handgun purchase across state lines, between states that allow it.
- More reduction of restrictions on Federally controlled areas...territories, Post Offices, federal buildings, military bases, Army Corps land, etc.
- Getting silencers, SBR's, SBS's off the NFA...and while we're wishing...maybe leaving machine guns on NFA with all the taxes, fingerprints, federal registration, but allowing new manufacture.
- Repealing the import restrictions on "non-sporting" firearms.
- As you suggest, make GFSZA a sentence enhancement rather than a stand alone crime. This one actually has the best chance also of being overturned by SCOTUS as it was in Lopez...Also maybe clarification of the OOS license issue, which is "made up law" by the ATF anyway given the statute itself is not very clear.
- Lawful commerce in firearms act and national park legislation are clear Constitutional exercises Federal authority over interstate commerce and federal lands, so more of that.
- LEOSA is horrible precedent and while I wouldn't spend any time on trying to repeal it, I don't really wish to see "reciprocity" expanded to civilians by an overreaching Federal government.

I just think that National Reciprocity is less likely to happen and has less basis in the Constitution than many of the other avenues that the NRA is pursuing. I'd rather not go to the mat trying to break a Democrat filibuster on it when we could accomplish more on the other fronts and at the State level.

[LiberalsNeedRemoval]

Sorry, but any "conservative" who opposes this is foolish. The fact is, we don't need to "set precedent that the federal government can do anything." Liberals have already done that, and WILL use that power whether we try to also use it to our advantage or not. Taking a principled moral stand and always losing is not a viable strategy.

[Charles L. Cotton]

...
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.

I agree with you on these points, however I don't think I was presenting a binary choice. Obviously, we're not going to get rid of all the Federal encroachments on State authority in one fell swoop. My only point of contention with a Federal Reciprocity measure is injecting the Federal government into the state regulatory regime of handgun licensing. It could easily be a mechanism for poison pills like 922o machine gun ban in FOPA, which some say was supposed to kill the whole measure. It would seem difficult to craft a federal reciprocity bill that didn't impose additional burdens on some States' residents, or further regulate where someone can and can't carry WITHIN a given State. Also, what about Vermont residents...? Do they get reciprocity to some extent even though their state doesn't issue permits?

To follow up on what I'd like to see the NRA and other pro-gun groups do at the Federal level is: Work on piecemeal repeal of what is practical, as you suggested. Also, to act in areas where there is already clear Federal Constitutional authority. Here are some additional thoughts based on what you already mentioned for the NRA and other pro-gun groups.

- Make a felony requirement for domestic violence convictions....that's essentially repeal.
- FOPA travel arguably is codifying what is already protected by the Second and 14th Amendments, and in Article II...interstate transportation and commerce in firearms. SO lets work on expansion of this provision perhaps to cover airports and clarify journeys which it covers and intermediate stops.
- Expansion of handgun purchase across state lines, between states that allow it.
- More reduction of restrictions on Federally controlled areas...territories, Post Offices, federal buildings, military bases, Army Corps land, etc.
- Getting silencers, SBR's, SBS's off the NFA...and while we're wishing...maybe leaving machine guns on NFA with all the taxes, fingerprints, federal registration, but allowing new manufacture.
- Repealing the import restrictions on "non-sporting" firearms.
- As you suggest, make GFSZA a sentence enhancement rather than a stand alone crime. This one actually has the best chance also of being overturned by SCOTUS as it was in Lopez...Also maybe clarification of the OOS license issue, which is "made up law" by the ATF anyway given the statute itself is not very clear.
- Lawful commerce in firearms act and national park legislation are clear Constitutional exercises Federal authority over interstate commerce and federal lands, so more of that.
- LEOSA is horrible precedent and while I wouldn't spend any time on trying to repeal it, I don't really wish to see "reciprocity" expanded to civilians by an overreaching Federal government.

I just think that National Reciprocity is less likely to happen and has less basis in the Constitution than many of the other avenues that the NRA is pursuing. I'd rather not go to the mat trying to break a Democrat filibuster on it when we could accomplish more on the other fronts and at the State level.

I think we've both pretty much exhausted our positions on this issue, so I'll close with this. National reciprocity by no means opens the door to Congress regulating where people can carry (other than on federal property) or the requirements to obtain a license to carry in any state. There's absolutely no basis in fact for that claim.

LEOSA is a great example, even though you don't like it. Under LEOSA, when an officer carries in another state, they must obey that state's laws. When someone gets married in Texas, they are married in all states, whether or not their state requires a blood test before getting a marriage license, or the minimum age to get married. Whether or not forced sexual relations with a spouse is unlawful depends upon the law of the state in which the act took place. If a couple gets married in Texas, but divorced in Ohio, the Ohio divorce laws control. The feds have nothing to do with regulating the requirements for marriage or divorce.

I understand the Tenth Amendment argument and the Police Powers argument, but those have already been lost. To argue that requiring all states to recognize another state's carry license opens the door to federal regulation of who can carry and where is groundless.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

On the topic of the fillibuster, I hope that Sen. Cornyn will insist on a true, old-school one (if D's insist on going down that road): you must STAND on the floor of the Senate and speak. No easy putting a "hold" on something. He should also insist that the Senate run 24 by 7 until the issue is resolved, thereby ensuring that a) the least legislative time is consumed and b) that the obstinate senator/senators are rightly blamed for inconveniencing their colleagues. The filibuster should be an extraordinary and costly exercise that is invoked only in circumstances befitting that description and investment of political capital. We've allowed it to become too easy. This whole "it takes 60 votes for general Senate business" is hogwash and never the historical norm.

The other alternative is to do away with the device all together. Harry Reid said that the democrats were planning to do so for, at least, SCOTUS nominations had Hillary won so we are being chumps for keeping it.

The third option is for Republican senators to have the same lack of spine we've seen before and cave.

SA-TX