PDA

View Full Version : National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act?


Novmiech
07-16-2012, 4:53 PM
Hi all, a friend at school just told me about your website and Im pretty happy with what I see :D

I have a question about the status of "National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012", and it's partner "Respecting States' Rights and Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2012". Both of these act's would make out of state CCW/CCP's valid in California.

Dianne Feinstein put a hold on both of these acts on April 18th. Well its three months later and I haven't heard a peep and cant find any information about when these acts are going to get rolling again - even a date of a future hearing would be something to know they haven't fallen off the face of the earth. I know that the gears of government grind slowly but it seems strange to not have any indication of what is happening.

I recently moved back from the great state of WA. and it is frustrating that my CCW/CCP is not honored here leaving me unable to carry concealed or open just because I'm not a lawyer, doctor or jeweler - while I living in the ghetto have a more legitimate claim to my and my families safety than they ever will.

OleCuss
07-16-2012, 5:26 PM
You can consider those acts as exceedingly unlikely to go anywhere this year. The politics are looking increasingly like Obama is having to go to his base to have a chance at re-election and having reciprocity pass would enrage his base.

So the Senate is going to ensure that Obama is not presented with reciprocity. DiFi will get re-elected almost no matter what so she can keep the hold on reciprocity and pretty much no one else gets politically hurt by her taking the blame/credit. Of course, our so-called "friends" in the Senate (Harry Reid, in particular) don't seem to be pushing to get reciprocity to the floor of the Senate.

Net effect is that the politics make reciprocity extremely unlikely until after January at the best. The odds are not zero, but they are now really bad.

Do understand. Obama's base would be pretty upset with military intervention in Syria and/or Iran. So Obama's entire policy is to just keep things from blowing up before at least October. In October he'll have raised all the money he is going to get from his base and he may decide that intervention will get him more votes than allowing the slaughter of Syrians and allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons.

So for the next 3-4 months Obama is going to try to look intimidating in the Middle East, but everyone knows that he'll do nothing of substance until at least October and probably not until after the November election.

Right now, protecting his extreme left-wing base is the most essential thing in his political life. His base will not tolerate reciprocity as they will not tolerate further intervention at this time.

There are sequences where it is possible. Let's say Assad starts using WMD's in Israel, Jordan, and against his own people. I don't think Obama will be able to sit on the sidelines and will start using air power against Assad.

Depending on how it plays in the media this may solidify his base or seriously damage it. If it is damaged, then he may go somewhat to the Right in order to try to siphon off some of the "Moderates". Little loss then from reciprocity's passage since he'll be down to the core base which will support him no matter what so if he gets more of the independents it'll maybe give him a chance. His problem then would be that DiFi may not fear him and may maintain her "hold" anyway. Overall, it takes some real imagination to come up with a sequence in which Reciprocity passes this year.

Novmiech
07-16-2012, 8:49 PM
Thanks for the break down.

After reading up on what exactly a senate hold is and how it can be defeated by a cloture motion, I found that the hold was intended for exactly what I had assumed it was made for -

"The ability to place a hold would allow that senator an opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on its implications before moving forward with further debate and voting."

Which of course led me to believe that these holds had some kind of predetermined length to them - but it appears they do not, and can be dragged out virtually endlessly filibuster style turning what was made with the intent of helping Senators make the correct choices for their states into a simple tool to stop all progress. Bull**** if you ask me :mad:

SilverTauron
07-16-2012, 9:20 PM
Bull**** if you ask me :mad:

That's generally how politics works.

OleCuss' synopsis is accurate. Even if Syria's situation calms down, I wouldn't expect HR 822 to go anywhere. Obama's taken some light flak from his left-wing base on his "silent" stance on Federal gun control laws. If HR822 makes it to the Senate floor it puts Barry , and the Democratic party with him , in a no-win scenario.

Outcome #1:HR 822 hits the Senate, pro gun Democrats vote for it alongside Republicans, it goes to the White House. He vetos. Left wing supporters cheer on his 'fight against the gun lobby', while independents and dissatisfied Republicans jump on the "anyone but Obama train".Having alienated the states with 50/50 Dem/Republican voters, he loses the election and the Democrats lose the White House.

Outcome #2:HR 822 hits the Senate, pro-gun Democrats vote for it alongside Republicans, it goes to the White House. Obama signs it into law. Liberals dissastisfied with his legacy of economic stagnation, rising debt, government corruption, and broken promises defect to Romney or protest by not voting at all. Obama loses to Romney , and the Democrats lose the White House.
Note that a lot of young voters picked Obama because he promised to do something about student loan debt, national debt, and the wars overseas and so far under Obama's administration those issues have taken a turn for the worse. Barry can't afford to make enemies of anyone, and the Democratic Party's fate rests on B.H.O's shoulders. So HR 822 , barring a miracle, is dead on arrival.

voiceofreason
07-17-2012, 3:29 AM
As my friend Stephen Wenger would say, be careful with National Reciprocity.

Although the immediate benefits are obvious, it could be the camel getting it's nose under the tent.

The camel being the federal government, the upended tent being 2A rights.

Just as we would have immediate relief, should SCOTUS swing the other way...

all states could be forced to submit to CA or NY style firearms legislation.

They would chip away at the original intent of the bill until it became "not worth it" for most Americans to try to carry.

This would then be enforceable by the federal government across all states.

Better to keep the states in power in this regard, and battle state by state... the momentum is definitely on our side. We are winning the war, battle by battle, state by state.

An impatient "victory" could cost us far more in the long run down the line, resulting in an ultimate loss a decade or more after the National Reciprocity bill is passed.


Does anyone really believe that people like Feinstein would allow such legislation to stand in its original form?

The Shadow
07-17-2012, 5:33 AM
I just finished reading a Newsmax article that makes getting reciprocity the least of our problems.

According to Dick Morris, if Hillary Clinton signs the U.N. gun ban, the U.S. could be bound by it until a President renounces the treaty. Apparently Obama and Hillary don't need a two thirds majority vote be cause the U.S. ratified another treaty called the "Vienna Convention", which apparently allows for thos sort of thing.

We are at a very precarious point in U.S. history, and every freedom loving American needs to get on board and defeat the Socialists that control the Democrat party. If Obama isn't defeated in November, kiss th 2A goodbye.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/rubio-romney-vp-candidate/2012/07/16/id/445539?s=al&promo_code=F7B1-1

Here's the article for anyone interested in reading it.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 5:41 AM
I don't think Dick Morris is right on this.

And if they try to implement a treaty killing our RKBA without ratification, I think they'd find SAF, NRA, CGF, etc. suddenly suing in multiple districts with a fast track to SCOTUS.

Either way, the focus needs to be beating Obama. Get Romney in the Oval Office and the odds are that such an end-run will not be implemented.

The Shadow
07-17-2012, 5:46 AM
You may want to read the article. I intend to do some research to understand what the Vienna Convention is all about. If Morris is correct, we absolutely must double our efforts to get rid of the socialists.

OleCuss
07-17-2012, 6:04 AM
You may want to read the article. I intend to do some research to understand what the Vienna Convention is all about. If Morris is correct, we absolutely must double our efforts to get rid of the socialists.

Read the article. Watched most of the segment on TV.

I've no doubt Obama and company would try to enforce an unratified treaty. Not at all clear that they would succeed.

I think motions for a preliminary injunction would be filed so fast you'd have trouble tracking them. If denied in District Court you'd probably get the case appealed up to SCOTUS at a nearly unprecedented pace.

I have great difficulty imagining SCOTUS allowing that implementation.

Let Obama have another SCOTUS appointment or two and Obama would succeed. But at this time the likelihood of failure to implement this treaty without ratification is very high.

I like Dick Morris, but I don't think he is a scholar on the Constitution or on treaty law. He is also wrong at times in his area of expertise - political campaigns.

The Shadow
07-17-2012, 6:20 AM
You may be right and Dick Morris may not be up on all of the laws that make this possible. But I have no problem believing that he probably knows people that have an understanding of these U.N. treaties and have advised him of the ramifications of Hillary putting her signature on a document like this.

gonzo1510
07-17-2012, 7:09 PM
While it should be anyone but Obama, I don't think Romney is the best choice either.

I think there was an atricle where Romney was actually in favor the the Brady bill... I'll have to look it up.

Gray Peterson
07-17-2012, 7:44 PM
Dick Morris doesn't know what he's talking about. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not at all do what he's saying.

Also:

Vienna Convention Signatories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_the_Law_of_Treaties#State_par ties_to_the_convention)

Notice we haven't ratified in 42 years?

The Shadow
07-18-2012, 7:05 AM
That's true, we haven't. But the part our representatives did sign is still in force.

I hope he is wrong, but just the same, I'm going to presume he's correct and prepare accordingly.

Gray Peterson
07-18-2012, 7:25 AM
That's true, we haven't. But the part our representatives did sign is still in force.

I hope he is wrong, but just the same, I'm going to presume he's correct and prepare accordingly.

He is 100 percent wrong. The Vienna Convention (1969) has not been ratified by the Senate. It is not in force or effect.

Marthor
07-18-2012, 10:04 AM
According to Dick Morris, if Hillary Clinton signs the U.N. gun ban, the U.S. could be bound by it until a President renounces the treaty. Apparently Obama and Hillary don't need a two thirds majority vote be cause the U.S. ratified another treaty called the "Vienna Convention", which apparently allows for thos sort of thing.


I think he's wrong. The Senate just failed to ratify the new UN "law of the sea" treaty (it was bad) and the treaty is done. It has to be ratified by Congress before it has any power.