2017 S. 446, Cornyn: Competing National Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Senate

[ceedubG]

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

Drop another vote from the senate election last night. Now they only have 51 left.

You might be right, but if Jones votes against CCR he will not be in that Alabama Senate seat long, and I'm sure he knows that.

I like the Fix NICS attachment because it gives Senators like Jones a reason other than CCR to vote ye on this bill.

[BAJ475]

Originally Posted by ceedubG

You might be right, but if Jones votes against CCR he will not be in that Alabama Senate seat long, and I'm sure he knows that.

I like the Fix NICS attachment because it gives Senators like Jones a reason other than CCR to vote ye on this bill.

I agree, especially given the fact that Alabama already recognizes permits from all states except Vermont so it's passage would have no material effect in Alabama other than deny those in Alabama with permits the right to carry where their permits are not presently recognized.

On the other hand, maybe he already knows that he will not be re-elected regardless of how he votes.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by ceedubG

You might be right, but if Jones votes against CCR he will not be in that Alabama Senate seat long, and I'm sure he knows that.

The concern is he knows that no matter what he won't be in the Senate for long. A politician with no future can be a dangerous thing - or a good thing, depending on where one sits.

[ceedubG]

Originally Posted by dfletcher

The concern is he knows that no matter what he won't be in the Senate for long. A politician with no future can be a dangerous thing - or a good thing, depending on where one sits.

very true. good point.

[ducitis]

Non Resident NEED's to be added.

Blue states will punish their citizens by no longer granting CCW, this is a given. Also financially, some states expiration is 5 years at 1/4 of the cost. This would force California into revising their policies in order to instead take that revenue.

[Paladin]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...enate-bill/446

Hearings on this bill have begun in the Senate Judiciary Cmte

"Bottom line" refresher: this Senate nat'l recip bill will NOT allow CAians CCW in CA with a non-CA CCW. But it will help us in that it will allow MILLIONS of out-of-state CCWers (and ConCarriers) to CC in CA every year when they vacation, business trip, visit friends & family in CA (in add'n to ~100k CAians who have CA CCWs). That will negate anti sheriffs contention that they restrict CCWs to "keep guns off of our streets." That eventually may make them and Sacto politicos to stop opposing Shall Issue.

But until then, if it becomes law, it will give CA BGs "a reason to fear" middle aged, overweight white guys wearing Panama hats, Hawaiian shirts and shorts with sandals, with cameras hanging around their necks and "hip packs" .... (Or the same wearing a "photographer's vest.")

[canadagoose]

Originally Posted by Paladin

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...enate-bill/446

Hearings on this bill have begun in the Senate Judiciary Cmte

"Bottom line" refresher: this Senate nat'l recip bill will NOT allow CAians CCW in CA with a non-CA CCW. But it will help us in that it will allow MILLIONS of out-of-state CCWers (and ConCarriers) to CC in CA every year when they vacation, business trip, visit friends & family in CA (in add'n to ~100k CAians who have CA CCWs). That will negate anti sheriffs contention that they restrict CCWs to "keep guns off of our streets." That eventually may make them and Sacto politicos to stop opposing Shall Issue.

But until then, it will give CA BGs "a reason to fear" middle aged, overweight white guys wearing Panama hats, Hawaiian shirts and shorts with sandals, with cameras hanging around their necks and "hip packs" .... (Or the same wearing a "photographer's vest.")

I expect California will respond by making more and more places no carry zones, possibly making a tiered system of licensing, and harassing out of state people who carry here. And the 9th circuit will rule none of it violates the 2nd.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk

[Paladin]

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith has signed on as a cosponsor to a bill that would allow people with concealed gun permits to carry firearms across state lines.

All states have some form of concealed carry permit, and many states accept permits from others. But the permits are not transferrable between states. The new law would mandate "reciprocity" — a concealed permit holder in one state can carry a gun in all other states.

"For law abiding gun owners with concealed carry permits, this legislation would affirm their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights in other states with right-to-carry laws," Hyde-Smith said in a statement. "This is sensible legislation that recognizes states' authority to issue firearms licenses and permits, while supporting the rights of gun owners."

Supporters, including the National Rifle Association, say the measure ensures a constitutional right is upheld across the country. They compare the issue to states accepting motorists licensed in other states.

Opponents, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, say it usurps states' rights to regulate who can carry a concealed gun. Some states have stringent requirements, training and background checks for permits. Others do not.

More at: https://www.clarionledger.com/story/...ill/555464002/

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by ducitis

Non Resident NEED's to be added.

Blue states will punish their citizens by no longer granting CCW, this is a given. Also financially, some states expiration is 5 years at 1/4 of the cost. This would force California into revising their policies in order to instead take that revenue.

The (now dead) House bill so provided, however, it is more objectionable to dems because it takes away a state's right to mandate the training and qualifications needed for issuance to its own citizens. In other words, it flies in the face of the "state's rights" claim (hypocritically) asserted by Dems in opposition to the bill.
The Cornyn version works more like a driver's license, with each state setting its own requirements for issuance to its citizens. Yeah, it sucks for you guys along the urban coast, but is more likely to pass. And as of the last time a count was made, there were not enough votes to overcome a filibuster and get a vote on the floor.

[ccmc]

I really want to be wrong, but I don't see any way this gets past the 60 vote threshold. We've been through this a few times already. Why is it any different now?

[Paladin]

If the proposed Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (CCRA) becomes law, violence in New York City will climb to levels not seen since the 1990s, warns Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.

“We are the most densely populated county in the biggest city in America,” Vance said Thursday. “The senator who votes for the CCRA from Texas, or from West Virginia, or from Arizona—they’re not going to have to pay the price for that.

“New York City is going to have to pay the price.”

The CCRA, which would force states to honor the concealed carry permits, or complete lack of permitting, of any other state, has already passed the House of Representatives and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. If it becomes federal law, Vance predicted it would introduce tens of thousands of guns into New York each year brought by the 40 million annual domestic visitors to the city.

Speaking at a public forum on gun policy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Vance said, “it doesn’t take much imagination to understand that’s a dangerous thing.”

Vance, who is also co-chair of Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, said the potential presence of large numbers of concealed weapons in high-traffic environments like Times Square would strain the resources of police.

“They’re the ones who will be on the front lines,” he said. “They’re not going to know [who] has a concealed carry permit.”

His warning was echoed by Michael Palladino, president of the New York Police Department Detectives’ Endowment Association.

“If this bill does pass, it’s going to be a law enforcement nightmare,” Palladino said. “If just 10 percent of tourists bring their guns with them, we’re going to have a big problem.”

More at: https://thecrimereport.org/2018/06/0...-warns-vance/#

[jrr]

Ah.. the blood in the streets hyperbole. News flash for those guys... Dallas, Houston, Salt Lake, Vegas.. all densely populated (granted not the rats nest level of Manhattan), and all with plenty of tourists. Their cops seem to manage just fine.

Of course... NY also has some of the worst instances of police corruption and abuse, so there certainly is some valid fear, for the out of towners that is.

Just need to run their statements through the ol' truth translator - “If this bill does pass, it’s going to be a law enforcement nightmare,” Palladino said. “If just 10 percent of tourists bring their guns with them, we’re going to have a big problem.” should be translated as " If this bill does pass we are going to have tens out thousands of New Yorkers wondering why people from other states get to protect themselves and we can't."

[ulmapache]

Just wanted to throw this out there.. Seems that most all "rational"objections to CCW reciprocity are based on "training"...or the lack thereof. Here's an idea...how about a training course that goes with the purchase of a firearm.. Say 4 hours...with some range time. As a CCW permit holder for 25+ years...I would like to know that my fellow citizens carrying firearms actually know how to use them. The present system allows in certain states a person knowing nothing about firearms to purchase a pistol, and immediately start walking around in public...knowing NOTHING of the proper and safe operation of the pistol.. Funding? Hmm...perhaps a nominal $20, and firearm manufacturers can kick in the rest, with the NRA providing instructors...and is good going forward. Next firearm you want to buy, present your card.. Ok, get your flamethrowers out and roast me...'cause it's just my 2 pfennigs worth...

[whatevs09]

excellent ideas, I have also long posed that the free market would come up with solutions. Also, how about ammo and accessory discounts for those who have taken (xyz) safety or range training, etc etc etc. Go capitalism. As an aside, have you heard about gunfights in the streets in the 10+ states that have constitutional carry??? No.

[ulmapache]

Ja, no "gunfights"....but I would assert that it only takes one to ruin it for everyone else. And if we can take steps to prevent just that one...we will have made the whole "constitutional carry" issue much more acceptable.Now, here we go, comparing guns to cars...yes, I know driving is a privilege...and guns are a right, but the concept is the same...safety. Would you let a person walk into the showroom, buy a car, and try to drive away in it with no training? I'd suggest presenting the firearms safety class in the same light...Drivers licenses are not so much about ID as they are about insuring that the motoring public is at least somewhat competent behind the wheel...

[R Dale]

Originally Posted by ulmapache

Just wanted to throw this out there.. Seems that most all "rational"objections to CCW reciprocity are based on "training"...or the lack thereof. Here's an idea...how about a training course that goes with the purchase of a firearm.. Say 4 hours...with some range time. As a CCW permit holder for 25+ years...I would like to know that my fellow citizens carrying firearms actually know how to use them. The present system allows in certain states a person knowing nothing about firearms to purchase a pistol, and immediately start walking around in public...knowing NOTHING of the proper and safe operation of the pistol.. Funding? Hmm...perhaps a nominal $20, and firearm manufacturers can kick in the rest, with the NRA providing instructors...and is good going forward. Next firearm you want to buy, present your card.. Ok, get your flamethrowers out and roast me...'cause it's just my 2 pfennigs worth...

You make a good point and I agree that safety training is very important for anyone that carries a firearm. The best way to accomplish a training standard for the purpose of national reciprocity is to have a federal standard that all states have to follow.

[ulmapache]

I think I'd rather side with a training course that goes with the purchase of a firearm...it negates the states arguments of poor or non-existent training... And unless the SCOTUS takes up a case in which they clearly define the scope and meaning of "keep and bear arms"...and what constitutes a "militia", 50 state reciprocity will have to be accomplished by the states themselves. Personally, I prefer George Masons definition... "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

[R Dale]

Originally Posted by ulmapache

I think I'd rather side with a training course that goes with the purchase of a firearm...it negates the states arguments of poor or non-existent training... And unless the SCOTUS takes up a case in which they clearly define the scope and meaning of "keep and bear arms"...and what constitutes a "militia", 50 state reciprocity will have to be accomplished by the states themselves. Personally, I prefer George Masons definition... "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Reciprocity for all 50 states will never happen if anything is left up to the states.

[ulmapache]

"Reciprocity for all 50 states will never happen if anything is left up to the states."

Regrettably true...I suppose that it will have to be congress that will have to pass a nationwide CCW bill...which will be fought in court for eternity...unless it could be brought up to SCOTUS on some sort of "emergency" status... And I still do not see why all this cannot be argued on "full faith and credit"...I've read the explanations...but still do not see the logic...
Perhaps a "perfect storm" is needed...a friendly court, a bill passed by congress allowing the creation of a nation-wide CCW permit, and a challenge to the bill...disputing the meaning of "to bear arms"... I dunno....maybe in my lifetime, little as is left... But, I never did think I'd see the day where one could walk in and buy pot legally...but today, one can...and it may go nationwide. Hmmm maybe combine the two... Nawwww....

[Drivedabizness]

How about a bill that goes beyond reciprocity to encompass all the civil rights issues? Reciprocity set's a minimum floor for "bear" - we need a floor for "keep" that addresses bans & rationing, microstamping, FFL zoning (all the Brady tactics) that would basically enshrine Heller. In return, really beef up legitimate attempts (w/due process) to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

[R Dale]

Originally Posted by Drivedabizness

How about a bill that goes beyond reciprocity to encompass all the civil rights issues? Reciprocity set's a minimum floor for "bear" - we need a floor for "keep" that addresses bans & rationing, microstamping, FFL zoning (all the Brady tactics) that would basically enshrine Heller. In return, really beef up legitimate attempts (w/due process) to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

Keeping guns out of the hands of people that should not have them sounds like a good idea on the surface but in reality not so easy to do. The only way to insure that someone does not get a gun is to put them in prison. Yes more need to be done to identify people that have mental problems and also more needs to be done to keep known dangerous people of the street for longer times when they are arrested but in reality most if not all anti gun laws don't help to make our society safer.

Micro stamping is a really dumb idea because if a firearm ever comes out with that feature those with ill intent will defeat it on firearms they wont use in crimes.

[ulmapache]

Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is relatively easy...20 years for the first offence of felon, previously convicted of violent crimes, in possession of firearm. life w/ no parole for the second offence. Same penalty for use of firearm in the commission of a crime by anyone. Make it so expensive that criminals will not want to take a chance on using a firearm...And...if a knife, or other item is used as a weapon, apply the same penalties.Mentally ill is another issue...where do we draw the line? Diagnosed by professional mental health personnel as a "clear and present danger" to self and public? No problem there...Took a course of valium 15 years ago during a rough stretch of you life, but are doing just fine today? Maybe that would ban you from owning and possessing firearms... Where do we draw the line...And how do we determine who has crossed that line, and just what that line is...

[MisterX9]

Its interesting that people who are pro 2A and particularly those who are concerned about resisting a "tyrannical government" are at the same time just fine in letting that same government decide what is a felony and then disarm citizens. Read the book Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

[ulmapache]

Originally Posted by MisterX9

Its interesting that people who are pro 2A and particularly those who are concerned about resisting a "tyrannical government" are at the same time just fine in letting that same government decide what is a felony and then disarm citizens. Read the book Three Felonies a Day by Harvey Silverglate.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

So...you would have no felony crimes at all? Not sure just what you are getting at...

[MisterX9]

Originally Posted by ulmapache

So...you would have no felony crimes at all? Not sure just what you are getting at...

I'm saying that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence. I don't think your second amendment rights should be forfeit for, for example, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That should be reserved for violent felonies involving use of a firearm. Your point about what you would like to be in relation to felonies with firearms neglects that basically the criminal justice system is effectively run by gun controllers.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by MisterX9

I'm saying that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence. I don't think your second amendment rights should be forfeit for, for example, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That should be reserved for violent felonies involving use of a firearm. Your point about what you would like to be in relation to felonies with firearms neglects that basically the criminal justice system is effectively run by gun controllers.

Funny thing, my anti-gun spouse doesn't understand why all felonies result in a lifetime firearms ban either. She thinks that this is bizarre.

I also tend to agree; however I would lump in all violent felonies as prohibitory, not just those in which a firearm was used. Do you think that a murderer should get his gun rights back after prison for no other reason than that he beat, stabbed, or strangled his victim to death?

Others think that "if you've served your time, you get all your rights back. If you too dangerous to be allowed your rights, then you shouldn't be let out of prison." While this a certain consistency and logical appeal, the Costitution does not, as currently understood, permit such a result except when a sentence of life without parole is given.

[Jimi Jah]

The senate is out of the gun law biz. In fact, they are out of the legislative biz too. About all they can agree to is a pay increase.

The senate is a deliberative body. That doesn't mean they have to pass anything.

[speedrrracer]

Originally Posted by TruOil

Others think that "if you've served your time, you get all your rights back. If you too dangerous to be allowed your rights, then you shouldn't be let out of prison." While this a certain consistency and logical appeal, the Costitution does not, as currently understood, permit such a result except when a sentence of life without parole is given.

(emphasis mine)

This seems wrong to me. Heller flat-out states that longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill are “presumptively lawful.” So you can lose certain rights and not just because you're serving life without parole.

Tyler v Hillsdale challenged a lifetime loss of 2A rights for the mentally ill, and while it didn't go to SCOTUS, the federal appeals court said, "We're OK with the lifetime ban, but only if you can support it with evidence so it can pass intermediate scrutiny". Since the govt couldn't support it with any evidence to pass intermediate scrutiny*, they lost, but the decision made it clear there exists a path to victory for them.

* does anyone wonder why the progtards are so fired-up to have the CDC conduct studies on "gun violence"? It is for one reason: They know the antis at the CDC will drum up some BS to "conclude" that "gunz r bad", and thus they can bring those studies to these kinds of 2A challenges.

Originally Posted by Jimi Jah

The senate is a deliberative body. That doesn't mean they have to pass anything.

Have to? Well, if they don't pass a budget and the govt gridlocks, those Senators won't be Senators after the next election.

[CASoxFan]

Originally Posted by MisterX9

I'm saying that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence. I don't think your second amendment rights should be forfeit for, for example, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That should be reserved for violent felonies involving use of a firearm. Your point about what you would like to be in relation to felonies with firearms neglects that basically the criminal justice system is effectively run by gun controllers.

I think the thought process here is that if you're convicted of a felony, involving a firearm or not, it shows a significant lack of judgement, and therefore you should not be entrusted with the responsibility to possess a firearm.

I agree not all felonies are created equally, and there should be some sort of scale for being eligible once again with clearly outlined criteria and process ranging from a permanent loss (for violent felonies) to losing the ability for a time then being eligible to re-apply.

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by speedrrracer

(emphasis mine)

This seems wrong to me. Heller flat-out states that longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill are “presumptively lawful.” So you can lose certain rights and not just because you're serving life without parole.

Tyler v Hillsdale challenged a lifetime loss of 2A rights for the mentally ill, and while it didn't go to SCOTUS, the federal appeals court said, "We're OK with the lifetime ban, but only if you can support it with evidence so it can pass intermediate scrutiny". Since the govt couldn't support it with any evidence to pass intermediate scrutiny*, they lost, but the decision made it clear there exists a path to victory for them.

* does anyone wonder why the progtards are so fired-up to have the CDC conduct studies on "gun violence"? It is for one reason: They know the antis at the CDC will drum up some BS to "conclude" that "gunz r bad", and thus they can bring those studies to these kinds of 2A challenges.

My post was poorly phrased. What I meant to say is that you cannot keep someone in prison beyond the sentence term even if that person is likely to commit a new offense. Proponents of a return of all rights after release respond to the question, "what about violent criminals?" with the off-hand, "well if they are dangerous then you should keep them in prison." The point is you cannot do that. It is unconstitutional.

[Deedle]

Originally Posted by TruOil

.... I would lump in all violent felonies as prohibitory, not just those in which a firearm was used. Do you think that a murderer should get his gun rights back after prison for no other reason than that he beat, stabbed, or strangled his victim to death?

I tend to agree except I don't see the need for the crime to be a felony. If a person is guilty of initiating violence then they shouldn't have weapons. In fact ....

Originally Posted by TruOil

Others think that "if you've served your time, you get all your rights back. If you too dangerous to be allowed your rights, then you shouldn't be let out of prison." While this a certain consistency and logical appeal, the Costitution does not, as currently understood, permit such a result except when a sentence of life without parole is given.

... I personally think they shouldn't be allowed to mingle in polite society, and I'm not sure what part of the COTUS prohibits us from making that so. If they are still too dangerous to control a dangerous object, it seems like it's fair to say they're too dangerous to mingle with us until they are trustworthy.

[Deedle]

Originally Posted by TruOil

My post was poorly phrased. What I meant to say is that you cannot keep someone in prison beyond the sentence term even if that person is likely to commit a new offense. Proponents of a return of all rights after release respond to the question, "what about violent criminals?" with the off-hand, "well if they are dangerous then you should keep them in prison." The point is you cannot do that. It is unconstitutional.

The 'sentence term' is determined by law, change the law right?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Deedle

The 'sentence term' is determined by law, change the law right?

There is the Constitutional limitation on cruel and unusual punishment, and yes, there are both sentencing "guidelines" and statutory sentences or minimums, all of which are subject to change. However, again, one the sentence is served, a convict must be released and cannot be held further without violating his or her constitutional rights. There is one exception in California for sexual predators who, although they must be released from prison, can be held "indefinitely" in a mental health facility specializing int he treatment of sexually deviant offenders. Escapes me where that place is--there is only one. And yes, that can mean that the offender is never released prior to death.

[Deedle]

Originally Posted by TruOil

.... yes, there are both sentencing "guidelines" and statutory sentences or minimums ...

So rewrite those. Solved.

[ulmapache]

Originally Posted by MisterX9

I'm saying that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence. I don't think your second amendment rights should be forfeit for, for example, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That should be reserved for violent felonies involving use of a firearm. Your point about what you would like to be in relation to felonies with firearms neglects that basically the criminal justice system is effectively run by gun controllers.

I see your point...and I should have been a bit more specific... So, lets say violent felons...life without parole...so...what do we do about first offenders..say someone that has minor brushes with the law...misdemeanor stuff..and all the sudden, he/she decides to do an armed robbery with a firearm...20 years no parole? 5 years? What do we do? I woldn't want some 18 year old starting down the wrong path to get his life destroyed over one major wrong decision...but do want to send a message... I suppose hanging the violent felon label on the individual might be enough to prevent some from re-offending with firearms...knowing the next time, it will be the end of his/her life outside...

[ulmapache]

Originally Posted by MisterX9

I'm saying that there are a lot of felonies that have nothing to do with guns or violence. I don't think your second amendment rights should be forfeit for, for example, violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That should be reserved for violent felonies involving use of a firearm. Your point about what you would like to be in relation to felonies with firearms neglects that basically the criminal justice system is effectively run by gun controllers.

Oh..BTW..I did mention "violent felons"in my original post...

"20 years for the first offence of felon, previously convicted of violent crimes..."

[GDC]

The reciprocity is near meaningless per se. The prime utility like fixnics is as a tactic. Dems propose any new gun control in the US congress, and we attach reciprocity as a poison pill. Fixnics is useful in a different way, as a low impact give. in practice the reciprocity versions that have come anywhere near close to passing have wont help anyone in a de jure or defacto may issue jurisdiction. its utility is in tying the demos in knots and roadblocking their other efforts'

so the bad news is it is doa, the good news is it is still helpful in other ways

[Paladin]

bump....

Sept and Oct this year are going to be really busy in D.C., what with Nat' Recip starting to move again in the Senate, the Kavanaugh confirmation battle in the Senate, and 1/3rd of the Senate and all of the House campaigning before the Nov elections.

Hang on to your seats once Sept 4th rolls around....

[Robotron2k84]

Why would McConnell move for a vote on reciprocity before the election? Still dangling it out there to get more GOP at the polls. Kavanaugh will be in Oct. and reciprocity will likely be voted on after the elections in November or December, if at all. It's still "in the fall" until 12/20/2018, no?

[TruOil]

Originally Posted by Robotron2k84

Why would McConnell move for a vote on reciprocity before the election? Still dangling it out there to get more GOP at the polls. Kavanaugh will be in Oct. and reciprocity will likely be voted on after the elections in November or December, if at all. It's still "in the fall" until 12/20/2018, no?

Well, maybe because he said he was going to bring it up for a vote before the midterms. If the Dems win big, then there will be no chance of it passing afterwards, even though the new representatives and senators will not take their seats until next year, because the Dems will effectively filibuster it.