BREAKING: National Reciprocity Bill Passes House of Representatives

Moments ago, the House of Representatives passed HR 38 — the National Reciprocity Act. The bill passed mainly on party lines, with 231 votes in favor and 198 votes against.

HR 38 would ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution applies to concealed carry permits the same way that it currently applies to drivers licenses, marriage licenses, and generally every other legal status of any kind. In other words, if you have a concealed carry permit somewhere in the United States you are good to carry everywhere else where concealed carry is permitted.

Also included in the bill is a provision which would improve the data collected into the NICS database, the tool used to identify people who are prohibited from owning firearms during background checks at gun stores. Inaccurate record collection is one of the reasons why the shooter in Sutherland Springs was able to purchase their firearm.

comments

  1. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    You mean they are actually moving closer to the if guns are like cars analogy we keep hearing about? Wow, I bet the liberals will think that’s great.

      1. avatar BRUCE A BOGLE says:

        Can’t wait to get my phazed plasma rifle in a 40 watt range.

        1. avatar bobo says:

          Only what you see on the shelf buddy!

        2. avatar Jeff in CO says:

          The California compliant model is limited to 10-Watts, has a loaded battery indicator, must be on the approved plasma rifle list, etc…

        3. avatar Tim says:

          Okay, time to retire the retarded, not-funny, not clever movie reference, Bruce.

        4. avatar M. Atkinson says:

          Lol, phasers are for pussies !

    1. avatar JB in ME says:

      Can confirm (source: am liberal gun-owner who is pleased by this)

  2. avatar Jon in CO says:

    Is this a worthy compromise for NR?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      So long as we insist that people in the database are actually given their day in court, yes. The problem was that Obama had decided that he was going to ignore the little “adjudicated” part of the prohibited persons list and just throw anybody he felt like into NICS.

    2. avatar Nanashi says:

      No. Rule number one of government: Once you have their money/rights, you never give it/them back.

      We’re never going to be rid of the abuses this causes.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Rule number one of government: Once you have their money/rights, you never give it/them back.”

        Until the late eighties, I had no right to carry concealed in Florida.

        I do now.

        Until Heller- McDonald, people in NYC had no right to keep a handgun in their home.

        They do now.

        This isn’t perfect, but it *is* progress.

        Once “Rivers of blood in the streets!” (mostly) fails to materialize, we will have taken a *massive* step in normalizing guns.

        What the ‘Mad Mommies’ fear the most is guns being normalized…

        1. avatar The Punisher says:

          Geoff,

          You’ve always had the right.

          What you meant to say was men dressed in blue and black with bigger guns would violently accost you if you were found carrying a gun up until such and such time as that order was rescinded.

          The rights we have are not positive rights granted to us by the government as you are implying.

          The laws on the books are all tyrannical and infringements of natural rights. We either tolerate those infringements or not. That’s what’s really going on.

          The .gov is an out of control beast that assumes authority and rights in every aspect of life and it should not. It has greatly overstepped its’ bounds. Unfortunately the people living here now are all brainwashed sheeple. Only hope is future generations and/or general collapse.

        2. avatar cisco kid says:

          Don’t be so smug the recent Supreme Court Decision that made the assault rifle ban legal completely reversed the Saclia Decision. By the Supreme Court refusing to hear the case it let the lower Court decision stand that effectively trashed the Second Amendment and affects the other law still in the courts in California that is in the process of confiscating everyone’s semi auto rifles. The Supreme Court is not about to lose face anytime soon and agree to hear another gun ban case which gives all the other anti-gun states the green light to ban any and all weapons and confiscate them just as California is doing now.

      2. avatar 98.7% mistake free says:

        First Rule of Acquisition 🙂

    3. avatar CZJay says:

      I don’t think so.

      Republicans are a bunch of phonies like the NRA. We can’t have good things because of them.

  3. avatar Clay says:

    This probably won’t pass in the Senate, however, if it does, this is going to be bad…. The NICS fix as written is going to be at the whim of the person in power at the time…

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      If either (or both) end up in the courts, I’m pretty confident HR 38 would hold up, while HR 4477 (or at least the really bad parts), could get thrown out.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Can someone point me to the really bad parts? I keep hearing about them, but I must have missed them. It’s a longish bill, and I only skimmed it.

        1. avatar tmm says:

          TX_Lawyer?

          Well, it incentivizes reporting, and punishes if someone thinks you’re not reporting enough.

          No way [cough] that could be abused.

          Nothing like a law to make sure you do what you were already supposed to be doing.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I was talking about all the “it does away with due process and gives all decisions to administrative agencies and kills your first born if you don’t smear lambs blood over your door” stuff. And I meant point me to the actual language that does the horrible sky is falling thing. Not the “if this had been the law, someone in the Air Force wouldn’t be getting their bonus (but they still would because the punishments never actually happen)” thing.

          I don’t believe statements that things I’ve failed to observe in things I’ve read are totally there from randos on the internet.

          The thing you said is there. I don’t really care unless I missed out on the part where the only people subject to punishment for not doing their jobs were all government employees.

        3. avatar Maxi says:

          To make it easy, govt agencies will get a bonus if they make many people prohibited persons and report them. If they don’t take a way enough guns from formerly law abiding people, no money for them.
          But of course this wouldn’t lead to atf kicking your door because of a speeding ticket in another state you didn’t even knew about, right? I mean we are talking about the government, and in the government we trust.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          They are just going to file a report saying that they reported all the prohibited persons.

  4. avatar GunDoc says:

    Unfortunate.

    The buyer’s remorse will ensure when a Leftist government uses this as a bludgeon.

    Anybody that thought this was a good idea…really does not understand the law, or the Constitution as well as they thought.

    The Constitution is negative law. Natural rights enumerated.

    This bill is positive law. Which gives a privilege, subject to later withdrawl, modification (or worse yet, opens the door to greater meddling).

    It will be hilarious to see the posts complaining about this four to eight years from now.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      It’s step 1. All we need is an amendment clarifying that only adjudicated additions to NICS are allowed and we get everything we want while giving up nothing.

      1. avatar Desert Ranger Tycho says:

        Exactly! Too many here are crying about how this legislation will be abused. This is seriously the dumbest argument – if written law meant anything then the 2cd Amendment itself would serve as the alpha and omega of gun laws.
        But lawyers gotta eat…

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Bull fing sh_t squared.

          “Adjudicated” means “We, your fing ahole neighbors who needed a job (your gov’t) can be wrong or mistaken all we want, even on purpose, and take away your rights because of what we’re wrong about, and YOU CSN GO F YOURSELF, YOUR ASSETS, AND THE REMAINDER OF YOUR LIFE HIRING ATTORNEYS TO EVEN HUNT DOWN

          WHICH

          MFs

          IIN YOUR “GOVERNMENTAL REALM” THREW THE HURT ON YOU, BEFORE YOU BURN TWO TIMES THAT IN THE FIGHT AGAINST IT.

          Adjudicated, pffft F THAT,

          YOU CAN’T FIGHT YOUR GOVERNMENT IN COURT (AND HOPE TO DO ANY BETTER THAN DRAINING YOUR LIFE SAVINGS TO BEAT YOUR WAY
          BACK
          TO
          ZERO),

          THAT’S WHY THERE’S THE SECOND AMENDMENT FOLKS.

          WANT IMMEDIATE PROOF???

          M O S T OF YOU HERE ARE NOT PROHIBITED FELONS,
          BUT YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO SPRING FROM YHE WOMB, FULLY-FORMED AND ARMED TO THE TEETH, TO BEAT BACK ALL OF THE THINGS THEY’VE DONE TO, AND THE RIGHTS THAT THEY TOOK AWAY FROM YOU BACK WHEN YOUR GREAT-GRANDPA WAS A YOUNG MAN.

          F IT ALL.

        2. avatar Tony says:

          Cool story bro, but everyone stopped reading as soon as your dumb ass started screaming in all caps.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          It’s not a story sis, and if you scanned over it enough to note that I used all caps in some of it, your brain read it anyway and came at least a little bit over to my side. Print and visual advertisers use this convention all the time, technical writers use it even more, and you don’t think it’s yelling.

    2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I really don’t understand the argument that this legislation opens the door to anything. That horse left the barn in 1939 and 1942.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “I really don’t understand the argument that this legislation opens the door to anything.”

        It ‘opens the door’ to *creating* bullshit ‘crimes’ that carry the penalty of making someone a prohibited person.

        I can easily see the tactic of the Leftists making reckless driving grounds for being on the prohibited person list, for example.

        Their logic will be, if you are convicted of operating a potentially lethal machine like a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, you have no business owning a gun.

        It all leads back to my prediction years back that getting into a shouting match at work will be eventually be considered grounds for losing your gun rights.

        The Leftists will expend *massive* effort now on “strengthening common-sense gun laws” by making any behavior not as passive as a compliant lamb making you a prohibited person, 2A-wise…

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          It’s not even creating crimes, they can take away your private property (your ‘arms’) by ALLEGING SH_T !

          And, oh, oops if you muster a miracle to FING GET IT ADJUDICATED much less prove us wrong later.

          TX_ATTORNEY – ever do any work against the IRS or in US Tax Court ??? The way they can and do F with you (even when they’re spitefully wrong) will make you think you’re fing starring in a live version of Alice in Wonderland meets The Wizard of Oz.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If that’s how it is, how does this bill change that? The feds have had the authority to regulate virtually every aspect of your life, including your guns, since before WWII ended. This bill opens the door to jack shit.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I still don’t see how that’s any different from now.

        4. avatar Joe R. says:

          @TX_Lawyer
          “If that’s how it is, how does this bill change that? The feds have had the authority to regulate virtually every aspect of your life, including your guns, since before WWII ended. This bill opens the door to jack shit.”

          IT’S NOT ONLY AN ASSIGNMENT OF THE AUTHORITY (to previously authorized and unauthorized / unempowered entities) (while also reserving the authority to themselves), IT’S AN

          FING

          P A I D

          INCENTIVE

          TO

          USE

          IT

          !!!

          You “don’t see it” because you are (D). You missed the Weinstein thing too? Hillary Clinton illegal bathroom server gateway to an enormous amount of U.S. Secret information, ring a bell?

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          What’s an assignment of authority? The Fix NICS creates no new authority in regard to classifying anyone as a prohibited person.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      This bill is positive law. Which gives a privilege, subject to later withdrawl, modification (or worse yet, opens the door to greater meddling).

      No, it really doesn’t. It is merely a more-detailed version of the fourteenth amendment, specifically related to RKBA. It only applies if a state has chosen to provide licensing for its own residents to carry a firearm.

      1. avatar FedUp says:

        Like Illinois chose to?

      2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        In the case of Illinois, chosen might not be the word.

      3. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “It only applies if a state has chosen to provide licensing for its own residents to carry a firearm.”

        Correct.

        New Jersey *has* a procedure to follow to lawfully carry concealed.

        They simply choose to offer very few, if any, of those licenses to their citizens.

        This law forces New Jersey to eat their own shit sandwich, by forcing them to recognize a Utah non-resident permit held by a New Jersey citizen, for example…

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          They don’t follow the last law with the NRA endorsed poison pill. Why would they care about this one?

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          The direct threat of holding the cop liable who hassles you…

        3. avatar Ed says:

          from what i read you have to have a permit for your state of residence

          who is carrying a valid license or permit which … permits the person to carry a concealed firearm … in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun … in any State that …

          such that i as an illinois resident with an il ccw can carry in states that had not previously recognized an illinois license such as CA FL or NY. this is a huge FU to states like illinois who do not honor any out of state permit

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Either what you read was wrong, or you read it wrong. If the person has a permit “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides” that person can carry. That “or” is important.

        5. avatar ed says:

          i believe that ‘or’ covers states with no licensing requirement. the important phrase is

          in the State in which the person resides

          so you have to have your state’s license or your state of residence has to have carry with no licensing requirement and you are not a prohibited person

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,”

          I can see why you would think that way, but I disagree. So we have “a person is licensed in their state” or “a person who is entitled to carry in their state.” That makes “who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or” meaningless surplusage because it would fall under the phrase “is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides.”

          Additionally, the Senate Bill, S.446, uses language that clearly indicates that a CA resident couldn’t carry in CA on an AZ license. It says: “a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the individual to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual.”

    4. avatar Hank says:

      Everyone that’s against NR just can’t seem to grasp the fact that once the democrats have a full sweep of the three branches again, it’s going to be on like Fucking donkey kong anyway. This is a HUGE win for us. When the democrats eventually return to a full sweep, they’re not going to need little piss ant shit subtle phrases in this bill to create stricter gun regulations. Because there aren’t going to be any stricter regulations… there’s going to be outright nationwide bans and confiscation leading to civil war. In the meantime, this bill will allow more people to carry and gun rights to spread giving us more numbers for this coming war.

      1. avatar neiowa says:

        The Whig party has a better chance of gaining all 3 than the demtards.

        1. avatar Hank says:

          I hope you’re right.

  5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    “HR 38 would ensure that the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution applies to concealed carry permits the same way that it currently applies to drivers licenses, marriage licenses, and generally every other legal status of any kind.” – This sentence almost couldn’t be more wrong. Full faith and credit applies to marriages, not licenses, and some other legal statuses. It does not apply to driver’s licenses.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      Also under this bill, no state has to recognize your permit. They have to allow you to carry concealed under the permissible restrictions laid out in the bill. For example, Texas doesn’t recognize licenses from Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. So the bill passes, the president signs it. The bill is now law. Texas allows open carry with a recognized permit. The new law requires Texas to allow concealed carry for qualified people from Minnesota, Vermont, and Wisconsin. Those people are not allowed to open carry in Texas (unless they have an out of state permit from somewhere else, like Texas – now for the new low price of $40.00).

      1. avatar MLee says:

        @ TX_Lawyer
        I have to disagree with your interpretation of H.R.38 I’ve read it a number of times and don’t see any language that resembles what you are talking about.

        (a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

        “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

        “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

        “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

        “(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

        “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

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

        “(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

        “(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

        “(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

        “(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

        “(e) In subsection (a):

        “(1) The term ‘identification document’ means a document made or issued by or under the authority of the United States Government, a State, or a political subdivision of a State which, when completed with information concerning a particular individual, is of a type intended or commonly accepted for the purpose of identification of individuals.

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

        “(f) (1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun.

        “(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:

        “(A) A unit of the National Park System.

        “(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.

        “(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

        “(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.

        “(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

        “(F) Land administered and managed by the Forest Service.”.

      2. avatar MLee says:

        @ TX_Lawyer
        I disagree with your interpretation of the bill. If a state allows its residents to apply for a concealed weapons permit, then they must honor other states permit.

        “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun in any State that—

        “(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm.
        “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          TX_Lawyer is technically correct (the best kind of correct–also the one that seems to matter to the courts interpreting laws). The bill doesn’t say Texas has to recognize Bob from California’s permit the way they recognize a Texas (or one of several other states) permit (which is required for open carry in Texas). It says Texas has to permit Bob to carry concealed, because he has a valid California permit.

          Here in Washington, you have to have a WA CPL, or other recognized permit, to have a loaded handgun within reach in a vehicle, concealed or visible. They could argue that somebody with an Arizona permit (Washington doesn’t recognize those) can’t have a loaded handgun in the car.

        2. avatar barnbwt says:

          It’d be a weird hybrid of local and native law if one’s home state *concealed* weapon permit allowed them to carry openly in Texas (only because Texas now has one permit for both, unlike the home state) but not a third state that has yet to pass OC. Concealed only may be limiting, but it’s at least simple enough to keep track of (well, varied local restrictions on concealed carry notwithstanding). Maybe when SCOTUS precedent forces all 50 states to respect open carry as they did concealed (and why not, ‘only criminals hide their guns’ lol) a follow-on reciprocity bill can force the holdouts to obey the damn law or face the civil-rights-law consequences. Probably within five years at the current pace of progress.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Ya, a CT resident (not otherwise carrying a lawful permit from elsewhere) can’t carry in TX because CT doesn’t permit cc/oc.

          Who gives a flying F, if they make it all reciprocal, then throw us all in the food processor of a billion and a half reporting agencies. Leave a state with an open bank account that goes negative 2,5 yeats later due to monthly fees (and they don’t have current contact info?) well sh_t, no problem, the District Attorney or Secretary of State can put you on the prohibited list until you clear it up, BUT YOU ARE A FUGITIVE FELON IN THE MEANTIME.

          KNOW WHO’S GOING TO BE “ON THE FING LIST” AS SOON AS IT CLEARS THE SENATE ??? EVERYONE WHO’S NOT CURRENT ON THEIR STUDENT LOAN PAYMENTS. JUST A LITTLE OVER 40% OF THE PEOPLE WITH OUTSTANDING STUDENT LOANS.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok Joe… please explain what is preventing said list now. Nothing about this bill expands the definition of a prohibited person.

        5. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Clearly, before this, Congress didn’t have authority to prohibit people from buying guns.

        6. avatar Joe R. says:

          It doesn’t expand the FEDERAL definition of prohibited person. It ALSO doesn’t prevent, IT IN FACT INCENTIVIZES lower entities for reporting UP TO THE FEDS, their objections to a particular person (or group of people’s) possession [i.e., part of a political group that someone has labeled “extreme”; supportive of ‘crazy’ stuff like marching FOR the “border wall”; along with the usual (co-workers, neighbors, family, or mailman say you’re crazy; doc says you reported stress or anxiety when orally questioned by the intake assistant at your last visit); you got a moving violation for more than 10mph over the speed limit, or were cited for speeding in a school zone; etc., etc., etc.]

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If they do that, it’s illegal; sue them.

      3. avatar Troubled Soul says:

        Can you explain something about the Fix NICS bill?
        As I understand it, it would allow gov entities to put anyone on the no buy list.
        Not courts, no due process.
        So the same people who took away gun rights from people on SS who had some one else handle their finances or veterans who has PTS and lost their guns could do the same again?
        In which case what would that do with those on the no fly list?
        How would any of these people get due process?
        It seems to me that this would be far worse than anything we would be getting.
        And I am really looking forward to not worrying that I could end up crossing into OR. armed
        Is that what ‘this would allow?

        1. avatar barnbwt says:

          You can already be denied for no reason, and there is already little due process to fix it. The system for reclaiming firearms disability has been defunded for years, and none of us is further away from NICS disenfrachisement than a mistaken warrant or simple mistaken identity. Plenty of stories of holds/denials based on similar names or stolen SSNs, that took months/years/never to to resolve.

        2. avatar Dan says:

          No. It just says that if you should be on the not buy list, gov agencies need to report this to NCIS. Tons of FUD about this bill.

        3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I’ll be blunt. 1. I skimmed the bill looking for the outrageous things I read about. 2. It looks like all the claims about it are absolute bullshit.

          As far as I can tell, it just says federal agencies should report prohibited persons (as already defined in current law) AND WE REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME! Also, states, here is some money to help with NICS reporting; if you want to be at the top of the list for grants, do NICS reporting.

        4. avatar Troubled Soul says:

          Thanks for the replies guys.
          If it’s just enforcing better reporting then I’m ok.
          If those who want to restrict gun rights need to claim a win for something they are already doing , I’m fine with it.
          I keep hearing that the Fix NICS opens the door to all the crap that Obama did through executive orders.

      4. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        TX_Lawyer, The part that troubles me is the “we will give you money for this” NICS enhancements, since anything you are willing to pay for generates more of the same. I suspect that the “parking ticket fugitive from justice” argument oversells the issue, and if the reporting agencies follow the actual rules it shouldn’t be a problem, but by default I don’t trust government agencies and the bureaucrats they rode in on!

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          “parking ticket fugitive from justice” – That’s totally a thing. A fugitive from justice (somebody with a warrant out for their arrest) is a prohibited person. I’ve had innocent clients who unknowingly had a warrant out for their arrest for about a year. If you don’t pay the ticket or show up at court, the judge issues a warrant for your arrest. The good news is that the FBI recently decided that you’re only a fugitive from justice if “you fled the state” even though that’s always been the definition. They recently took “more than a half a million names” off the NICS list. http://www.myajc.com/news/crime–law/trump-administration-some-facing-arrest-may-still-buy-guns/I4yhVXMBHbPwSwKfUimJCP/

          ATF – Fugitive from justice. Any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a felony or a misdemeanor; or any person who leaves the State to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding. The term also includes any person who knows that misdemeanor or felony charges are pending against such person and who leaves the State of prosecution.

          18 U.S.C. 921(a)(15) – The term “fugitive from justice” means any person who has fled from any State to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceeding.

          You may notice these two definitions are different in meaning and effect.

        2. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Our government is terrible. If you read the article I linked to, you’ll see that the ATF was the one arguing against the FBI in favor of following the law as written, but only mostly. The ATF that brought you Waco and Ruby Ridge was the “good guy.” Our government is awful.

          Also this change to following the law as Congress wrote it is all Trump’s fault according to the article.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          They pay for better reporting, but a state or Fed “authority” can always later devise a new legal scheme whereunder you become someone that goes on THEIR list, e.g., the now ~ several year old program where they target “deadbeat dads” for child support without any proven paternity, because the druggy mommy thinks you may have been one of the 150 people that she slept with when she was shooting up.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          A “state or Fed “authority” can always later devise a new legal scheme whereunder you become someone that goes on THEIR list.” Under the bill, it only matters if the state authority is the one you have your right to carry from. If the Fed “authority” isn’t Congress, then fuck em. If they don’t FOAD, then sue them.

        5. avatar FedUp says:

          The ATF brought us Ruby Ridge and Waco, sort of, they started it with BS warrants against innocent citizens.

          The violence at Ruby Ridge was started by US Marshals when they shot a 14 year old boy and his dog for walking in their own yard, and finished by the FBI when they shot the boy’s mother for standing in her own doorway.

          The violence at Waco was started by the ATF when they shot a religious leader and his infant daughter as he answered the door, and finished by the Feral Bureau of Incineration when they burned a church down with congregants still in it.

        6. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          To be fair, they had weird religious beliefs. /s

        7. avatar Joe R. says:

          “If they don’t FOAD, then sue them.”

          A G A I N

          and still. . . (you’re a freekin attorney ?????)

          YOU GO SUE THE FING GOV’T

          you say it like 1) it isn’t nearly impossible;
          2) even if you win, YOU’VE ALREADY BEEN HARMED, AND ARE ALREADY IN A POSITION WHERE YOU CANNOT BE RESTORED TO THE STATE / POSITION YOU HELD BEFORE YOU WERE W R O N G E D BY YOUR GOVERNMENT SO YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY KILLING YOURSELF TO JUST BEAT YOUR WAY BACK TO LESS THAN ZERO; and
          3) YOUR GOVERNMENT WILL NEVER OFFER TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXECUTE ANY FORM OF SUCH RESTORATION ON YOUR BEHALF, AND WOULD TAKE 1200 X THE AMOUNT OF ANY RECEIVED RESTITUTION TO COMPEL THEM TO DO SO.

          “they had weird religious beliefs” — FU [even if /s], you have NO FING IDEA what they’re beliefs are, other than what was reported to you by the people who went and took over their camp by armed military and governmental forces. THERE’S A POS (D) GROUP OF AHOLES IN CALIFORNIA THAT WORSHIP WEED. THEY GROW IT AND SMOKE IT AND THEY OFFENDINGLY CALL THEMSELVES, AND WEAR THE TRADITIONAL DRESS OF, AN “ORDER OF NUNS” AND WE CAN’T SEEM TO DRAW ANY FING INTEREST BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE IN THOSE MFs.

        8. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          Calm down man.

  6. avatar ‘Yes’, he’s *your* President says:

    Who loves ya, baby!……

    1. avatar Joe R. says:

      He’s going to be remembered as one of our Nations’s best Presidents. I always said he could be even better than Reagan, because he has Reagan for a template.

      3.9% Adjusted GDP growth says an OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of Americans agree with me.

      And at least he’s not a cack sacking eVil POS MFn (D).

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        Last night I told my brother that Trump is both the best and worst president. That’s talent right there. The worst part is an exaggeration, but seriously, some of the shit he does is just crazy.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          “some of the shit he does is just crazy”

          you’re either not paying attention or you’re not on his side, and he’s playing ya.

          Have you read any of his books?

  7. avatar FB says:

    I disagree with mixing the NICS fix in the bill.
    I understand the strategy, I just don’t understand the logic.

    1. avatar Bob H says:

      That ones easy, they mixed the two bills to get them both passed. Totally gets the FUDDs on board cuz they get to say “I supported the Second Amendment AND common sense regulations!” Come re-election time.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “I understand the strategy, I just don’t understand the logic.”

      I’ll explain it to you.

      There are a *large* number of ‘D’ senators up for re-election in the 2018 mid-term elections.

      *25* of them. We have something like *9*.

      There are a number of those ‘D’ senators willing to vote for the combine bill so they can go home to their constituents and proudly tell them that they ‘Strengthened Background Checks!” against the bad, naughty, evil guns.

      It lets Democrats save face, and that gives us the 60 votes to pass it.

      National carry for us is a *big* part of normalizing guns in America. Since we are 5X + more law-abiding, the streets will not be running with rivers of blood (except Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc.).

      That is the logic, as I see it…

  8. avatar Paul says:

    I love, Love, Love the idea of National reciprocity. I do… but Fix the NICS May be too high a price to pay. I’m disappointed in Republican Leadership in the House for bundling these. HR 38 probably would have passed in the house without it, and either way, it still probably won’t pass in the Senate. If anything, the Senate may still try to pass Fix the NICS on it’s own.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      I know; rather discouraging how readily –gleefully, even– they were to adulterate an otherwise very good bill with lots of support & interest. As though compromise itself was the real goal of the exercise, and not a means to an end.

      Oh yeah, there’s also a vague/broad bump-fire ban tacked onto it now, as well (Senate version, I believe)

  9. avatar Montana Dan says:

    So you support H.R. 4477. You support no buy lists that completely hamstring due process.

    Would you mind putting in full disclousre about what H.R. 4477 actually was instead of glassing over it? I thought this was THE TRUTH about guns, not we’ll fill you in on what we think is relevant about guns.

    1. avatar Evey259 says:

      Fix NICS holds reporting agencies accountable and raises reporting rates from once every 12 months to once every 6. Please stop losing your minds, it’s literally nothing and, in fact, lowers response time allowances on NICS adjudications from a year to 60 days. For once in their miserable lives, the Dems actually did something tangentially pro-gun.

      1. avatar Joe R. says:

        So a string of 60 day holds if they’re teally backed up on clearing the holds???????????? Maybe it’s a FING FUNDRAISER to hire more FING “hold clearers” ???? Can’t bill for bloated bureaucracy until you cause the taxpayers to really need one. What about fixes for real (but minor) infractions that get you on the list, maybe paying a small to medium to large fine (cough* donation) to a FING liberal cause of your choice may get you off the hook (if they don’t use their unsecure illegal bathroom server to look up a British agent to hire GPS to write a fake pee pee dossier so the former FBI directors can get FING OOODLES OF $$$$ [more than the Benghazi investigation, in 1/4th the time] to F with a seated duly elected president and while they try to hide all their tracks).

        F the evil POS (D) the rinos and establishment gov’t. Drain the swamp.

  10. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “BREAKING: National Reciprocity Bill Passes House of Representatives”

    And now on to the senate…this should be interesting…

  11. avatar JasonM says:

    TX_Lawyer is technically correct (the best kind of correct–also the one that seems to matter to the courts interpreting laws). The bill doesn’t say Texas has to recognize Bob from California’s permit the way they recognize a Texas (or one of several other states) permit (which is required for open carry in Texas). It says Texas has to permit Bob to carry concealed, because he has a valid California permit.

    Here in Washington, you have to have a WA CPL, or other recognized permit, to have a loaded handgun within reach in a vehicle, concealed or visible. They could argue that somebody with an Arizona permit (Washington doesn’t recognize those) can’t have a loaded handgun in the car.

  12. avatar Wulfenstar says:

    Let’s talk positives. Those stuck in slave states will begin to question why the yokels from red neck states can freely carry guns in their safe spaces and they can’t. Woke, indeed. This may be the watershed moment, and death, of gun control. Not to mention the reawakening of national spirit.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “Those stuck in slave states will begin to question why the yokels from red neck states can freely carry guns in their safe spaces and they can’t.” – They won’t under H.R. 38 because they can just get an Arizona license and meet H.R. 38’s requirements to carry in any state. (I don’t know of a license that is easier to get from out of state).

      1. avatar SoloDallas says:

        That’s what I did; applied for Arizona’s CCW hoping this would happen. I’m in California where it’s hard to get CCW. If this bill passes Senate, I will be able to carry in California.

        1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I’d be real careful out there in the Ninth Circuit where logic and the rule of law go to die. Honestly, I’d give it a year or two before carrying. And you’re going to have to stay on top of a the changes to state law that will be coming out like crazy. It still won’t be easy. Possible, but not easy.

          But that’s why I’m a lawyer. Caution, caution, and then some more caution.

  13. avatar John in IN says:

    The strategy, as I’ve read it is: Pass this combo in the house. Pass a similar bill , but no reciprocity in the senate. Send both bills to committe where recipricity is reconcilled away. Revote flies through both houses. And presto! NICS is expanded and reciprocity is on the cutting room floor. All the actors get paid off as planned. All kabuki.

    1. avatar John in IN says:

      I hope I’m wrong.

    2. avatar barnbwt says:

      They wouldn’t be stupid enough to pass demonstrable expansion of gun control without getting something very good in return with a Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican President, and solid SCOTUS precedent forcing usefully-broad concealed carry in all fifty states…would they?

      1. avatar Higgs says:

        I don’t know. The GOP has a tendancy to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at times.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “I don’t know. The GOP has a tendancy to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at times.”

          So do Democrats.

          The proof – The 2016 presidential election.

          *mic drop*

    3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      I hear that Fix NICS was going to pass no matter what. The House combined the two and passed both as one. Cornyn, the hated, has repeatedly stated that he didn’t want to poison pill Fix NICS with his weak ass version of H.R. 38, S.446, because Fix NICS “will save lives.”

      I’ve also heard that the Senate will pass Fix NICS only. When it goes back to the House, they will consider reciprocity dead and be more likely to vote against Fix NICS than they would have been.

  14. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

    It’s in that first part.

    “Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section,” – the preemption of local law pointing to a later exception to preemption. Also known as “why.”

    “a person” – who.

    “who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm,” – qualification for who #1.

    “who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person,” – qualification for who #2.

    “and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm” – qualification for who #3A.

    “or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,” – qualification for who #3B.

    “may possess or carry” – the act who may do.

    “a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce,” – the object which can be acted upon.

    “in any State” – the where the who (subject) can possess or carry (verb) the gun (object)(for the purposes of this discussion, the modifications to the object by adjectives and such will be ignored).

    A person who meets the qualifications can possess or carry a gun in any state because the federal government says so. Not because the federal government says all states have to recognize a state’s permit as valid.

    I have to admit, I was tempted to respond “yes it does” and just quote the entire bill.

    1. avatar MLee says:

      Post the entire bill. Post the version from 12/04/17
      I love arguing this shit. I’ll do it all damn night.
      I like this part:

      “(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

      “(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        I like that part too.

        I said the thing about posting the whole bill because you basically did that. It was kind of like saying “there is no word that means what you said,” and then handing the person you’re talking to a dictionary as proof.

      2. avatar Joe R. says:

        Again, you’re a, or may be a, (on the list) walking-around felon until they ‘catch’ you, then you’re an incarcerated felon, then you FING DIE before fully clearing your name, and your great grandkids get a letter in the mail saying they’ve corrected the record and you could get your guns back (except they’re missing, and that dead people ate prohibited possessors).

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          Watch the movie Brazil.

        2. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          watch the olympics brazil.
          watch the movie cyclo.

        3. avatar Joe R. says:

          Cyclo? Not the same thing.

          The movie Brazil is like a comedic and stylized “1984” that shows the interactions of a governmental worker who gets bulldozed by an unstoppable governmental bureaucracy even while he’s helping said government in bulldozing others.

  15. avatar robert andolin says:

    I wouldn’t worry, the useless congressional republicans could’t pass their way out of a paper bag. This will never go through, just a desperate attemt to save them a drubbing in 2018

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      I called his office multiple times to oppose a merged bill. Disgusting.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        If your guy wasn’t in the Republican Leadership, then all he can do is bitch at Ryan and the others who are. Most of those guys aren’t gonna push that hard, they will just say that on balance it is a strong step forward and vote how they are told. The leadership is mostly weak on the 2A, or they want to string us along and continue to use it as a wedge issue. I am so tired of hearing that they tried, but the Democrats got in the way. And the dog ate their homework again.

  16. avatar MDH says:

    Why do Democrats so despise liberty?

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Because they want to rule over the workers/people, thus liberty is not acceptable for the non aristocracy.

      1. avatar Rusty Chains says:

        That and the idea of the well armed lamb contesting the vote frightens them. That’s the real reason they hate the idea of citizens possessing effective militia arms.

        1. avatar Joe R. says:

          They want to quietly take over the world with communism by your abdication of position of power with/of your ‘Rights’. It’s only 40 pages. Read it, look up the history and the preceeding agendas.

          https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication

          https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

          https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

          http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

  17. avatar Helms Deep says:

    The Latest Update From Gun Owners of America. — The Fix NICS attachments to HR – 38 are called the ” Traffic Ticket Gun Ban ” …. ( now we see why Shumer – Finestine – Pelosi and Murphy all love this bill )….. minor issues will result in REVOKING your Rights.

    My License and car registration was suspended for a speeding ticket issued to someone with a similar name , Police issued me a ticket and said ….
    ” Sucks To Be You , you’ll have to go to court and PROVE YOUR INNOCENCE ! ”
    GOA says this already happens way to often , and ” Fix NICS ” will only make it WORSE.

    *** Pass a clean CCW bill , like S – 446.

    https://gunowners.org/pass-reciprocity-not-gun-control.htm

  18. avatar rt66paul says:

    I so not think Ca will honor “out of state permits” to Ca residents. If I get a Utah CC out of state CC permit, Ca may have to recognize it from someone who resides in another state, but a Ca resident still will not be allowed to carry without a permit ok’ed by his county’s LE top cop.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      If they don’t, then they’re just wasting more California taxpayer money.

  19. avatar Adam says:

    As a Californian stuck in Los Angeles county I couldn’t be happier. The reality check though is that this will likely not have the votes in the senate, especially if it was straight party lines in the house.

  20. avatar Libertarian says:

    Theres an “nuclear” option as limited the speaking time against filibuster right ?
    Used it and be happy !

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      The power of the filibuster to stop legislation dead in its tracks is an overblown lie. The most the filibuster can do if the leadership really wants to get legislation through is slow things down for a month or so and maybe kill a few Democrats while they’re staying up all night and day.

      The problem is that the Republicans, especially leadership, are not very conservative. They are actually pretty moderate.

  21. avatar cisco kid says:

    Note:
    Again it just goes to show you what hypocrites the Far Right are. They are willing to crush States rights when it suits their agenda but rant against the abolition of Constitutional States rights when it doesn’t. They stick their noses constantly in the air claiming they are the Moral Majority and for Family Values and then willingly endorse a dangerous Pedophile running for Congress just because he is a Republican. At least the Democrats are making their members of Congress resign in droves even though their indiscretions were with adult women not children

    Bloomberg is correct about States rights and doubly correct about the wide variations of training given in other states. What he did not mention was the myriad of state laws that give the right to either shoot or not shoot which again will create a legal nightmare in a shooting situation. In Nazi Brutal uncivilized states like the Texan 3rd Reich you can blow people away for pissing on your lawn (only a slight exaggeration) while in more civilized states like California or New York the laws are much more civilized and strict as when you can use people for target practice.

    Yes the whole idea of a reciprocity act is turning into a legal nightmare before the law is even passed. It must be realized that traveling to other states one often is really traveling to and in a foreign country with different cultures, races, religions and political outlook which all resulted in a myriad of thousands of different laws and regulations and attitudes in relation to firearms ownership and when you can use deadly force. I think it is so complex they would have to design a super computer program to give you pages and pages of readouts when you crossed state lines with a universal concealed carry permit.

    WHAT IS THE SOLUTION. THERE IS ONE.

    In order for the law to work we need a Federal mandatory safety test that you must pass with a certain grade and a new mandatory universal law in regards to when you can and cannot shoot according to Federal Guide lines which would trump all State Laws both in terms of carry and when and when you cannot shoot which of course takes away all of States Rights which the hypocrites of the Far Right would probably go along with if this was the only way the could get reciprocity and in reality its the only way such a law could work by giving immunity to ccw holders if they are involved in a shooting as well as immunity as to what type and caliber gun they could carry with California screaming from the tops of their Mountains about banned guns coming into the state. Just another example of how mandatory a Federal set of laws would be for any of this to even begin to work.

    And remember States rights according to the Constitution do not really exist. The Feds do what they want either by direct violation of the Constitution or by threats of withholding Federal Funds to States and some States are so poor they have been legally bankrupt for years and if it was not for government handouts which the hillbillies in those states hate with a passion all of the people there would soon live in a state with no usable highways, bridges, food or medical care. They are all too dumb to know how much the Feds do in just keeping them alive and giving them a state that is livable to exist in.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email