TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We are long past the beginning of the feds dipping their toe into matters that should be solely within the police powers of the states. We aren't going back either, so deal with reality, not what you wish was true.

National reciprocity will not lead to Congress establishing laws related to carrying handguns. It is nothing more than an extension of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I know, some people will argue that deals with court orders, but note I said "extension." Further, some states have courts issue carry licenses, and those most certainly would be covered.

Chas.

Charles, do I takes this to mean you fully support a national reciprocity law at the federal level?
Assuming so for discussion .. can you envision a "common sense and fair" national reciprocity law passed tomorrow that all welcome and agree, only to have it altered 2, 3, 4, years down the road by sleight of hand, announced on Friday before 4th of July weekend...only finding out Sunday the new change says you have to submit a favorable mental investigation report from a certified Doc on the federally approved list, further finding out that list has only 1 doc per state.

I guess what I mean is... once the "good" national reciprocity law is passed and all have patted each other on the back, is it not an easier process to add, modify the existing law adding things all we would had objected to strongly had it been included in the original bill? I accept my ignorance is showing, and why I ask.

le\
The legislative process to change a law is the same as to create a new one. I think what people mostly fear is laws that create agencies who have the ability to make rules. These rules can be written and modified at will without Congressional approval and a Presidents signature. The NTSB works this way it is an agency that that basically controls funding and rules regarding licensing and rules of the road. As long as Congress doesn't set up an LTC Agency I think we're gonna be alright. The BATF doesn't have any control over our licensing and carry laws.

jmra wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

Yep. Those "high powered" .22 rounds.

Hey man, I'd shoot the crap out of some bad guy with my Ruger 22/45 loaded with something nasty in NY or California versus having to leave my G17 or G21 at home like I do now.

E.Marquez wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We are long past the beginning of the feds dipping their toe into matters that should be solely within the police powers of the states. We aren't going back either, so deal with reality, not what you wish was true.

National reciprocity will not lead to Congress establishing laws related to carrying handguns. It is nothing more than an extension of the full faith and credit clause of the constitution. I know, some people will argue that deals with court orders, but note I said "extension." Further, some states have courts issue carry licenses, and those most certainly would be covered.

Chas.

Charles, do I takes this to mean you fully support a national reciprocity law at the federal level?
Assuming so for discussion .. can you envision a "common sense and fair" national reciprocity law passed tomorrow that all welcome and agree, only to have it altered 2, 3, 4, years down the road by sleight of hand, announced on Friday before 4th of July weekend...only finding out Sunday the new change says you have to submit a favorable mental investigation report from a certified Doc on the federally approved list, further finding out that list has only 1 doc per state.

I guess what I mean is... once the "good" national reciprocity law is passed and all have patted each other on the back, is it not an easier process to add, modify the existing law adding things all we would had objected to strongly had it been included in the original bill? I accept my ignorance is showing, and why I ask.

Yes, I fully support national reciprocity, if the NRA-supported bill is the one that passes. No, I'm not worried about that bill making it easier to pass anti-gun legislation. Anti-gun legislators try to pass their garbage and we defeat it. They don't need national reciprocity to try again, nor will that law help to pass such legislation.

Liberty did a good job of covering regulatory agencies and I won't repeat his points.

Chas.

suthdj wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

I'm not saying that anti-gun leg can't be introduced later. I'm saying that there will be a time that we aren't in control that that National Reciprocity is going to piss off a bunch of people and that might just bring on that time sooner rather than later, that's what I'm saying. I was just trying not to say it quite so bluntly.

National reciprocity will not influence people on the fence much, and it definitely won't influence those on one side or the other of it. Those who want to ban firearms, gut/repeal the second amendment, or simply regulate/tax gun rights away will continue to do so irregardless of what we do. Those who choose to defend gun rights will continue to do so as well. Fence sitters will not be swayed by national reciprocity because the vast majority of them will not be affected by it as far as they can tell. What it will do is protect a single mother who gets stopped in New Jersey thinking her license is valid there, it will allow people from California to carry in New York state, and it will also let people from all over the nation carry in New York city and Washington DC. The people that will feel it's effect the most will be those who are among the most law abiding segments of the population and those among the most law breaking segments of the population because once the first group has a license to carry they are legal to carry anywhere they might need to defend themselves from the second.

As for it being a target for being removed, I'm fine with that. The more pro-gun laws we can pass while we have control the greater the effort our opposition will have to put forward to undo all of our work and the more political capital it will cost them. It will also cost them votes when it comes time for re-election when the people want to know why they risk prison for simply driving through New Jersey.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

SewTexas wrote: I'm not saying that anti-gun leg can't be introduced later. I'm saying that there will be a time that we aren't in control that that National Reciprocity is going to piss off a bunch of people and that might just bring on that time sooner rather than later, that's what I'm saying. I was just trying not to say it quite so bluntly.

I think you're looking at it all wrong. If we aren't making them angry and upset then we are doing something wrong or aren't doing enough.

It's funny how the leftist are not afraid to offend us, but we are so afraid of them and how they are going to react. We have the numbers, We have the power, and we have the ammunition (Real facts) this is no time to fear retaliation, We need to go in and get done what we can. We talk about the snowflakes and how they're being oversensitive, but I see the MOM's holding back no mercy, they lie and call us murders and push for laws that will disarm us, while we hold back because we are afraid of getting them upset.

It's been a long time since the legislature has been able to push forward any anti-gun rules. Even under the oppressive Obama we have able to press forward and force him to sign pro-gun legislation, and have not allowed him to pass any anti-gun legislation. I also thin that the NRA proved once again that they are a powerful influential force. Their advertisements are credited with giving the Trump a 5%-7% swing in the battleground states. The thing is we often look at the 2nd amendment rights as a Republican issue, the truth is there are many Democrats that are on our side, A lot of the blue collar battleground states have populations of rural folk who hunt and like to shoot. It's time we stop cowering to the loudmouthed minorities who have no power.

suthdj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: 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.

The EPA, OSHA and BATFE are bureaucratic agencies created by laws that have the power of creating rules and regulations. They have the abilities to create these rules and regulations without going through the Constitutional process of passing both houses and getting a presidential signoff. The reciprocity Bill creates no new regulatory agencys, in fact ,if it does anything it might limit the authority of some agencies (DOT) because laws take precedence of regulations and rules.

Sometimes we are our worse enemys, We do more to limit ourselves than the angry MOM.

Liberty wrote: The legislative process to change a law is the same as to create a new one. I think what people mostly fear is laws that create agencies who have the ability to make rules. These rules can be written and modified at will without Congressional approval and a Presidents signature. The NTSB works this way it is an agency that that basically controls funding and rules regarding licensing and rules of the road. As long as Congress doesn't set up an LTC Agency I think we're gonna be alright. The BATF doesn't have any control over our licensing and carry laws.

Thank you..... That makes sense

Charles L. Cotton wrote: His larger point is groundless.
Chas.

Ouch, well ok then....

Mr Cotton, thanks for taking the time to respond.
I see and NOW understand why the National Reciprocity Act (or what ever it might be called in a bill) is not a threat as i perceived it might be.
So even though my point was groundless, I did not know that at the time, so I learned something..

suthdj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote: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.