TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:Here is the NRA statement in my email:

The underlying bill that will be considered by the Senate is S. 649, the so-called “Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013”. This bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by law-abiding citizens, requiring friends, neighbors and many family members to get government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. It is expected that a number of amendments will be offered to S. 649, including a ban on commonly and lawfully-owned firearms and magazines and language to criminalize the private transfer of firearms through an expansion of background checks. This includes the misguided “compromise” proposal drafted by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV), Pat Toomey (R-PA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

NRA’s position on these proposals is unmistakably clear—we are unequivocally opposed to S. 649, the amendments mentioned above, and any other anti-gun amendments. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks at gun shows or elsewhere will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools. Given the importance of these issues, votes on all anti-gun amendments or proposals will be considered in NRA’s future candidate evaluations.

If the Senate is truly concerned about enhancing safety, rather than political grandstanding, it will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools.

RoyGBiv wrote:GOA Initial Comments. Dated Yesterday
http://gunowners.org/congress04112013.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although Toomey, Schumer, and Manchin have understandably tried to conceal their legislative language until it was too late to respond, the following addresses what was represented to us to be the Toomey-Schumer-Manchin sell-out.

The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.

In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.

John75 wrote:SAF's Alan Gottlieb is in favor of the Manchin-Toomey legislation. It's interesting that he was there during the writing of the bill and states that it is actually a pro-gun bill in disguise. Watch him explain here:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-gu ... amendment/

XinTX wrote:

John75 wrote:SAF's Alan Gottlieb is in favor of the Manchin-Toomey legislation. It's interesting that he was there during the writing of the bill and states that it is actually a pro-gun bill in disguise. Watch him explain here:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-gu ... amendment/

Okay, so EVERYONE will be compelled, by law, under threat of prison, to get 'permission' from the gub-mint prior to selling their own personal property and it's a "pro-gun" bill? If you fail to report the loss of a firearm to the US Attorney General within 24 hours and it's a "pro-gun" bill?

Sorry. I'm not sipping that particular flavor of Kool-Aid right now.

Mike1951 wrote:Fox is saying it provides for national reciprocity.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... oss-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.

In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:Fox is saying it provides for national reciprocity.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... oss-state/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The proposal essentially grants states "reciprocity" regarding concealed carry provisions.

In other words, the provision would grant gun owners the right to obtain a firearm and a concealed-carry permit in their home state, then use the permit to carry and conceal the firearm in another state.

I've read LOTS of posts in this forum asking the question "if we're calling it a "compromise", what are we getting?"

Well......... If we "get" national reciprocity, and we "get" better travel protections, are we willing to be further inconvenienced when we sell a gun between members on this board? If SAF was "in the room" when the bill was drafted, and they're indicating an attempt to make this a real compromise, maybe even a compromise that's biased in our favor, I've got to take that opinion seriously until I can verify otherwise.

Full disclosure... I have not yet read the bill. I've started several times but like some others here I'm finding myself a bit too disgusted to read it just yet. I'll probably get through it on Monday, after I send my tithe to Uncle Sam.

However.... I have read several reports of some real "gets" in the bill. Assuming we continue to fight to water down the "gives" and improve the "gets", are we willing to support a few gives for some real gets? (again, I haven't read it yet, so, "gets" still to be verified.)

Honestly....... If national reciprocity is really in this bill, I'm willing to give (as little as possible) on background checks. Can you imagine the pleasure of landing in NYC or Chicago and being able to carry?

A gun-rights group on Sunday endorsed a bipartisan compromise in the Senate to expand background checks — splitting from the National Rifle Association. .....

In announcing support, the group pointed to sections of the compromise that lift some restrictions on guns that are already in place.

couzin wrote:I have seen several times in news sites the notion that concealed carry reciprocity is in the amendment - but I read the text of the legislation twice and I swear I don't see it. Maybe I am just dense and can't get past the trees - can someone point out where it talks about reciprocity?

xring wrote:Toomey may be the next Arlen Specter.