H.R. 38 & H.R. 4477 National Reciprocity and fix-NICS combined pases House 12/6/17

[DanMedeiros]

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.

Even if it has a residency requirement it will be a big political win. Hard to justify may issue when somebody from Nevada can carry in CA but a resident can't

[Cortelli]

Also a good thing is that since hr. 39 and hr. 4477 are combined together..it's no longer a stand alone bill. That's been discussed many times here before... that's what this bill needs to increase the chances of it passing.

Yes. I wasn't close to the implications around combining the two when it was announced, and was initially worried about the combination and what it meant based on some concerns from certain gun rights orgs and representatives. But I've come to view the combo as very important and a shrewd move in Congress.

Senate dems are (hopefully) going to be forced to shoot down fix-NICS to have any chance of stopping reciprocity. I don't think that is a winning political move for a lot of dems, and I hope they'll bend to that reality, and accept reciprocity to get fix-NICS.

Dems raise a lot of money from gun-control orgs, but gun rights orgs deliver votes (which is why the NRA is so demonized, IMHO). The history of gun control and the democrats, it seems to me, is that they tend to be harmed (nationally) by pushing for more controls. And pushing hard enough to stop a bill promising to strengthen the background check improvements of fix-NICS in trade for reciprocity would open them up to very effective arguments (provided repubs and others can for once in their lives make those effective arguments).

[stag6.8]

The Senate version of the bill (sponsored by Cornyn) already has a "permit issued by state of residence" provision, which makes it different from the House bill. If the Senate doesn't alter Cornyn's bill, and it passes the senate, then the two chambers will have to reconcile the bills, come up with an agreed version to take to a vote, and pass that too.

I fear that in order to get through the Senate, they'll have to go with a residency requirement, but fingers crossed!

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.

Also a good thing is that since hr. 38 and hr. 4477 are combined together..it's no longer a stand alone bill. That's been discussed many times here before... that's what this bill needs to increase the chances of it passing.

[Cortelli]

Hopefully the dems in the senate wont try to add a residency ammendent like they tried to do in the house and failed to do so...and all the republicans will be on board with this...and since its no longer a stand alone bill (NICS), some dems will vote for it too...and most of all PASS!!!

The Senate version of the bill (sponsored by Cornyn) already has a "permit issued by state of residence" provision, which makes it different from the House bill. If the Senate doesn't alter Cornyn's bill, and it passes the senate, then the two chambers will have to reconcile the bills, come up with an agreed version to take to a vote, and pass that too.

I fear that in order to get through the Senate, they'll have to go with a residency requirement, but fingers crossed!

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.

[skilletboy]

Do we have enough votes in the Senate to get this pushed through?

God I hope so, but I doubt it.

[bhp1410]

This seems like an easy 10th am. challenge in court

[WokMaster1]

Do we have enough votes in the Senate to get this pushed through?

[DanMedeiros]

Cut the hyperbole and have a reasonable open discussion.

NICS and FFL mandated background checks aren't going anywhere. Fix NICS bill does not change any enforcement criteria, it only enacts .gov agency accountability according to current law. You are choosing a poor place to draw lines.

Saying no to a pro-2A bill on the grounds of insignificant administrative changes at the government agency level to laws already on the books is a pretty poor excuse IMO.

Agreed. The naysayers on this thread should get out of there mom's basements and actually try and effect change in the real world. I work in politics. This is a great deal for us.

[CalAlumnus]

Unless an amendment passed today that changes the wording of the bill, this is incorrect.

The bill as written explicitly prevents any arrest or detainment for "any" law or regulation pertaining to the possession, carry, or transportation of a firearm.

Please see post #56 in this thread for a breakdown of the wording. Quoted below:

Correct. And further, the House Judiciary Committee considered an amendment that would have excluded “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” from the protections of H.R. 38. The Committee voted down that amendment, 7-17.

Here’s how the committee report described it:

High Capacity Ammunition Magazines. Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) offered an amendment to prohibit the bill from allowing the carrying of high capacity magazines for use with handguns across state lines. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 7-17.

That is a clear indication of legislative intent—H.R. 38 allows people to carry “any” magazine across state lines, if they have an out of state CCW.

[ruel]

I can see a lot of out-of-state people getting into trouble with this.

[DirtyLaundry]

Local laws apply. Cannot carry standard capacity magazines and cannot carry where it's generally prohibited.

Unless an amendment passed today that changes the wording of the bill, this is incorrect.

The bill as written explicitly prevents any arrest or detainment for "any" law or regulation pertaining to the possession, carry, or transportation of a firearm.

Please see post #56 in this thread for a breakdown of the wording. Quoted below:

This is incorrect, there is no text in the bill indicate this forces those who carry in a state to conform to that state's laws regarding type of firearm carried or magazine capacity.
The text of the bill actually specifically covers magazines and ammunition as a "handgun" to be protected under this law:

15 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine
16 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded
17 into the handgun or its magazine.

Section (b) outlines the limits upon which a state may exert it's local laws in relation to this bill:

16 ‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede
17 or limit the laws of any State that—
18 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
19 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
20 on their property; or
21 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
22 arms on any State or local government property, in-
23 stallation, building, base, or park.

Section (c) says that if someone complies with sections (a) (carry requirements) and section (b) (allowable state restrictions), this person may not be arrested or detained for violation of any of that state's rules or laws regarding possession or transportation or carrying of firearms:

24 ‘‘(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed
25 handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may
1 not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any
2 law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political
3 subdivision thereof related to the possession, transpor-
4 tation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable
5 cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner
6 not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially
7 valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima
8 facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit
9 as required by this section.

This bill specifically protects someone who carries under its provisions against a states laws regarding type of firearm and type of magazine AND type of ammo.

The only valid criticism of this aspect of the bill that I have seen is that there is no illicit protection against confiscation, only against detainment and arrest. Although it could also be argued that this protection is implicit.

Edit: Bolded relevant text for clarity on this point.

[HarryS]

The proggies in Lost Angles County are going to stay inside their houses with the blinds drawn for days if this gets through the Senate. The local antifa warriors may rethink their tactics. And CA will lose money from people not applying for a CA permit, perhaps.

Sounds fine to me. A three-fer, in fact.

[stag6.8]

Hopefully the dems in the senate wont try to add a residency ammendent like they tried to do in the house and failed to do so...and all the republicans will be on board with this...and since its no longer a stand alone bill (NICS), some dems will vote for it too...and most of all PASS!!!

[johncmng]

Local laws apply. Cannot carry standard capacity magazines and cannot carry where it's generally prohibited.

I can see a lot of out-of-state people getting into trouble with this.

[DevilDawgJJ]

We're gonna be looking for 60 votes in the senate, devil dog. Probably fairly soon...

Roger that!