Spotlight Falls on Red-State Democrats as a New Gun Fight Brews in Congress our friends at thetrace.org predicts. They ain’t just whistling Dixie — if only because The Trace is a New York City-based operation. Founded and funded by the “gun-free” zone’s former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whose Everytown for Gun Safety sent out this text blast:
I’ve yet to see any coordinated action for The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 from the GOA, NRA, SAFE or any other of the usual gun rights groups. Huzzahs, yes. Appeals for public support, no. I suppose they’re keeping their powder dry.
Let’s hope they have plenty of powder. This is the big one folks. The single most important piece of gun rights legislation since the following [wikipedia-sourced] abominations (no pun intended):
National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.
Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (“FFA”): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.
Gun Control Act of 1968 (“GCA”): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
Firearm Owners Protection Act (“FOPA”) (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law’s passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.
Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.
Are YOU ready to FORCE all 50 states to recognize the gun rights of all LAW-ABIDING Americans? If yes, add a comment below and reveal your plan to help make it happen.
My rep is a solid Republican, but unfortunately both Senators are Demokkkrats so calling them would be a complete waste of time.
No doubt, Repubs will get lots of calls opposing it. It is imperative that Repubs get calls supporting as well, otherwise they will think that there is no support.
“…both Senators are Demokkkrats so calling them would be a complete waste of time.”
I strongly disagree. Until they are slapped in the face with a wet fish, the D’s all think they have a super majority, everyone agrees with them. Calling them, even thought it will likely not help your position (whatever topic you care calling about), they are reminded that there are people whose interests differ from theirs. It you take the trouble to call, you are likely an active voter.
Politely remind them that come election time, you will actively campaign against them..
My senators are Feinstein and newly elected Kamala Harris. Feinstein will run unopposed until she retires or dies. The same will likely be true for Kamala, or at least that no republican will make it to the finals in our state, where only the top two candidates appear on the ballot. Both are rabid antigunners. There is no point in talking to either, although people have tried. My congressman is a Republican and pro-2A who was recently re-elected. Pointless. Moreover, even national reciprocity will not bring California in to the Shall Issue fold, it will simply have to tolerate all of the gun toting tourists.
The House bill will allow citizens of one state to carry in any state with a license issued from any state. It also sets a minimum bar for where licensees can carry. It further allows for the carry of any “handgun.” That definition includes magazines for the handgun and ammunition that is in the magazines. It also includes civil penalties and attorney’s fees for states that violate a licencee’s rights under the (if enacted) statute. This bill can’t really be much better without changing it from a reciprocity bill to a general gun-law preemption statute.
The Senate bill is just reciprocity. Total weak-sauce. Very Disappointed in Cornyn and Cruz.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ….
Senators Durbin & Duckworth have little fear of losing their jobs by voting against concealed carry reciprocity. Illinois is blue enough.
The Dem Senators in the states that voted Trump are justifiably concerned for their careers. They are the ones who need to be leaned on, and leaned on hard.
“Senators Durbin & Duckworth have little fear of losing their jobs by voting against concealed carry reciprocity. Illinois is blue enough.”
A national carry bill represents a great “opportunity” for the NRA rubes to fumble the ball on a larger scale than what they have already done.
NRA lobbyists can collude with the police unions and cut a backroom deal. Then everyone in America can have criminal penalties for gun-free zones, plus an unelected Star Chamber Concealed Carry Review Board like what we have in Illinois! The possibilities for failure are endless!
Don’t worry, the progressives that really support the rights and lives of people, especially those minorities oppressed by those racist, hateful and bigoted whites that voted for Trump will support this bill.
Hmmm, wait a minute, I’m confused. It is in those red states full of racist, bigoted hateful whites intent on committing mass murderer against minorities, that overwhelming voted for Trump, are the same states where those supposed hunted minorities can carry a fire arm, in up to 11 states, without a license.
But it is in primarily progressive states, that supposedly really cares about those oppressed minorities, where they are almost completely denied the right to KABA, denying those “hunted” minorities, the ability to protect themselves from the supposed planned and supposedly hoped for mass genocide to be perpetrated by those hateful, bigoted and racist whites that voted for Trump.
LOL. Yep. I have to admit I had some fun with the obvious obsurdity inherent in the cries of all those progressive subjects, even out right slaves; terrified of the only group that actually respects their G-d given rights of self-defense, while dropping thier pants and bending over to their real slave masters, the regressives that throw them some scraps from thier government table, as they are patted on the head and told they are good little politically correct multi-cultural drones.
It’s NOT the republicans we have to worry about. The bill will pass the house and senate. The issue is pressuring red state democrats in the senate to either vote for it OR at least not phillibuster.
The trick is to CALL your senators especially in states trump carried that have democrats in the senate. My senators are solid on guns. One is the sponsor of the bill. The other is ted Cruz. Lol. I’ll still call them.
If you live in a state that really matters, for example your democratic senator is up for election in 2018 and your state went trump or was close , call both senators and get 5 friends to do the same. Be polite BUT let them know your a likely voter and will likely vote in the primary also. Let them know you will likely donate to a primary challenger or general election opponent if they fail to support your human rights !
When you call, please express your support for the House version of the bill. I posted above why it is better. The only improvement the Senate bill makes is taking note of states that issue two kinds of licenses and stating that those states have to recognize the out of state license as the superior of the two.
Cornyn introduced it, but I still don’t trust the guy as far as I could throw him. He’s a squishy establishment guy who’s gotten way too comfy. I would love to see him replaced by another Cruz or Louie Gohmert type come 2020, Texas needs to pull its weight in supporting the Constitution.
I don’t trust him either – but I do applaud him for introducing it. That’s a damn sight better than we’d get from McCain and Graham…
I’ve got no clue what the heck McCain and Graham are. To me they are just as bad as Warren or Sanders. I don’t think those wonder twins have introduced plans to cut military benefits for veterans while masquerading as a supporter like McCain has. Man is lower than dirt, he should be rotting in jail after 1989 after the Keating crap. He is absolute scum, and America isn’t safe until he’s gone.
Flimsy Graham is an embarrassment to SC and America. No one will run against him because the good ol’ boy system here is alive and well. The 17th amendment needs to be revoked.
I’d trade both of our Senators (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell) for him. Hell! I’d trade them for a dead cat. At least a dead cat couldn’t go to DC and vote away my rights and wealth.
Do you have evidence at hand substantiating your claim on Cornyn being squishy? I’m not saying he’s not. I’m saying I’d like to evaluate your claim, so I can better evaluate my primary choices (if I get any).
Here in the land of Lincoln, gun rights only exist if the Supreme Court literally instructs Illinois that they do exist. Having said that, I’m willing to waste my breath calling Duckworth and Durbin. LaHood generally supports gun rights, so OK on that front.
Call NRA/ILA and speak to Chris Cox or Chuck Cunningham. Ask them to bring Illinois state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde to D.C. to negotiate the national carry bill.
If you’re lucky, he can cut a backroom deal with police unions, gain the votes of Durbin and Duckworth for selling out, and everyone in America could end up with Duty to Inform and criminal penalties for all violations.
You’re in good hands.
I absolutely will not support it.
The legislation, if passed, would proceed under the Commerce Clause (just like LEOSA), an unconstitutional basis for this sort of legislation.
Either states’ rights matter, or they don’t. While I’d like to be able to carry everywhere, I’m not willing to be a hypocrite and support undermining the Constitution just to get what I want.
The 2nd Amendment has been incorporated against the States. Which means that technically, the States don’t get a say in 2nd Amendment matters — they already gave their consent when they joined the union. Incorporation means the 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as to the Federal government.
I’m all for States Rights in all possible ways — but the Bill of Rights are not subject to State restrictions (at least, those items in the Bill of Rights that have been specifically incorporated against the States).
TexTed, I understand your sentiment, but I must disagree. And please forgive me for falling back on the “I’m an attorney” line, but I’m afraid it’s true. While the 2d has been incorporated against the states, the 2d does not give the federal government — Congress, that is — the ability to legislate on the subject. That is, Congress lacks authority to act except as in those areas for which it has been given authority to act. That is, if the Constitution doesn’t say Congress can act on a particular subject, it can’t act. The 2d doesn’t do so. Rather, the 2d protects against actions by the government — it protects against, it doesn’t authorize action. That’s why these sorts of laws are passed under the auspices of the Commerce Clause — it’s used as a broad basis for much Congressional activity, because it can be spun to cover so many topics and because courts are deferential to Congress so long as it makes a finding of fact that a particular law implicates the Commerce Clause. So, in sum, no, the 2d doesn’t authorize the federal government to “do” anything with respect to guns. Quite the opposite, really. The 2d merely means that individuals have the right to bear arms, and that neither the federal nor state governments can strip them. It may ultimately mean that states can’t restrict the rights of their citizens to carry firearms, but it absolutely doesn’t permit the federal government to force one state to honor a permit issued by another.
So then we can go back to letting states decide what marriages are valid and recognized again?
what say you about this:
“FACE (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act) Title 18 U.S.C. § 248
Recently signed into law, FACE is a federal statute (18 U.S.C. §248) that provides criminal and civil sanctions for obstructing or interfearing with a woman’s access to abortion. It has sustained challenges on 1st Amendment grounds.”
BLoving. Your comment is as incorrect as it is snarky. Obergefell concluded that marriage is a fundamental right under due process and equal protection. Congress didn’t “force” states to recognize or allow gay marriage. Rather, the Supreme Court concluded that marriage is a fundamental right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and that states could not violate that right. Just like certain searches by state officers are impermissible because they violate the 4th amendment, even though the state may have passed a law that says it’s permissible. You greatly misunderstand the difference between garrulous and restrictive.
FACE is a criminal statute that precludes behavior by an individual. It doesn’t force states to “do” anything. It just makes certain conduct illegal under federal law. But that said, it’s an awful statute because, again, it’s passed based on the Commerce Clause.
Tell that to slavery, women’s suffrage, the civil rights act, and gay marriage. A right is a right, and the Federal government does have the power to protect those rights against rebel states that refuse to acknowledge the Constitution. No need for any commerce clause finagling, we’ve got Heller and McDonald backing up the fact that its an incorporated right that the state’s can’t infringe.
“While the 2d has been incorporated against the states, the 2d does not give the federal government — Congress, that is — the ability to legislate on the subject.”
That is correct. However, the 14A does. Specifically Section 5. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” If the 2A is incorporated against the state, then the Congress has the authority to enforce the 2A against the states. Appropriate legislation has been ruled to include going beyond what the courts could do themselves.
Additionally, there are a great many powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that can be argued to give Congress authority to pass laws regarding firearms. Especially preempting state laws against firearms. These sections would be limited only by later amendments. I can’t think of a logical argument in which the 2A limits the Feds authority to restrict state actions.
“11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”
A lot of these are pushing the envelope, but 16 and 18 are not.
EXACTLY…thats the whole point
if a woman from kentucky can get an abortion in all 50 states “because of the 14th amendment” then a guy from wisconsin should be able to carry in all 50 states because of the 2nd amendment
remember: the word “abortion” isnt even in the 14th amendment
Roe is a shit decision. But it doesn’t mean that the Constitution empowers the federal government to act. It means that states cannot infringe on a federally protected right. And in Roe, unfortunately, the Supreme Court concluded that the 14th protects a woman’s right to an abortion. It has nothing to do with the current issue.
The bills are an improvement over the current legal environment. They may not be perfect but they will get better.
Now, with President Trump calling for this before the election and since his inauguration we have the best and perhaps only for decades.
In 2006 Kansas passed a flawed concealed carry bill. It has been amended every session since and now Kansas laws are as good or better than Arizona’s.
Kansans can have NFA weapons, can carry everywhere, with exceptions for federal courts and Corps of Engineers land and water. Some of that is fixed in Hudson’s bill. There is no reason why public areas of Post Offices should ne unarmed victim zones.
Kansas allows carry in the Legislature. It is a peaceful place. Let’s not cut off our ears and noses because some people, maybe false flag people, scream foul.
BTW, this is not a Commerce Clause issue but an Article One”full faith issue.”
…interesting take on the issue.
Yeah. This. Commerce Clause Catch All.
If it passes, there’s gonna be an immediate fight from NY, NJ, CA, etc.
Immediate injunction from some liberal judge.
If there is a successful legal challenge on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional, then we can use that to challenge other dubious Federal legal regimes. So a win either way.
Great point — I’d love to see that happen.
This times 1 Billion.
If they say that this isn’t valid as the Commerce Clause doesn’t give Congress the right to regulate guns then that pretty much guts all Federal Gun Legislation.
The United States of America is NOT the plaything of some handful of leftist judges, no matter what they might think. They need to take their injunctions and shove them right up their backsides.
Wouldn’t it fall under the “Carry Clause” no pun intended, where by my drivers license or marriage license is valid in all 50 states?
Sorry, no. Driver license reciprocity is the result of the 50 states agreeing among themselves to honor each others’ licenses. It is not the result of any feddle govt mandate.
This is actually a great reason to support it. If it holds up in court, it is a 2A win, hands down. if the courts strike it as an abuse of the commerce clause it sets precedent that there are commerce clause limitations that previously have not existed.
that is win-win in my book.
Full faith and credit is a valid constitutional basis for this, I think.
Every state recognizes legal marriages, no matter which state recorded it. Every state recognizes drivers’ licenses, no matter which state issued it (and traffic laws and licensing exams do vary between states, so that’s no obstacle).
Ing: Good thought, but that’s a common misconception.
The FFC requires states to honor the judgments of other states, but that’s about it (with rare exceptions). So if you sue me in NY, I lose, and move to Florida, you can use the NY judgment to execute against my property in Florida (for the most part). But states aren’t required to recognize laws or legal conduct in other states. Marriages, for example, are recognized, but they don’t need to be (though they have chosen to do so for so long that it might as well be the law — especially post-Obergefell), and recognition of drivers’ licenses are also a matter of agreement among the states (the DLA is the interstate compact that provides for this). But you can’t (usually) force one state to allow something that another state has determined to be legal. Here’s a good real-world example: Colorado has legalized marijuana for both recreational and medical use. But a medical marijuana card, which legally allows you to purchase marijuana in Colorado, will not be honored in Kansas. Similarly, if you are from Colorado and are driving through Kansas and get stopped with marijuana in your car, the argument that “I’m from Colorado and it’s legal there” doesn’t do anything for you. And this isn’t because it’s illegal federally, it’s this way because states are permitted to decided what conduct is or isn’t illegal within their borders, so long as the laws don’t infringe on a right protected at the federal level. The FFC, though, doesn’t allow affirmative transfer of rights in one state to another.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” ~Tenth Amendment
States don’t have a “state right” to go against anything in the constitution. If the constitution says “The people have a right to XYZ” that means all forms of government (Federal, State, and Local) cannot create laws removing those rights. Maybe if this was a healthcare case I would agree since the constitution says nothing about healthcare which means it is up to the state to decide if they want to socialize it or not but in this situation the constitution is very clear on the second amendment as are previous Supreme Court rulings. Shall not be infringed. That means the states have no “right” to infringe upon my right to “keep and bear” arms.
Sadly the Supreme Court will not weigh in our favor on this issue so we are being forced to create more laws in order to drill it into the idiot progressives head that “shall not infringe” means “No seriously, you can’t pass laws that take away the right to keep and bear arms. No, not even if you label it as ‘public safety’…no not for the children either…”
You’re talking bout what the courts can do to the states; he’s talking about what the Congress can do to the states.
Incorrect. The language supposes reliance on the full faith and credit clause – a perfectly plausible basis for this legislation under the constitution. This is worth supporting and doesn’t negatively impact all our concerns about abuse of the commerce clause. Other posters are generally correct that the FTC clause does not require this. But it is a legitimate basis upon which congress may act.
Each law passed by Congress ought to have an explicit or obvious grounding in an “enumerated” power of Congress. Here, I believe, we agree. Congress has a fair number of explicit legislative powers:
I-8: “The Congress shall have Power . . . ” subsections 1 – 18. (#16 is a suitable example)
IV-1: “And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe . . . ”
A14: “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” (Several of the later Amendments contain such a clause; but the first 10 do not.)
Provided Congress has a plausible rationale for legislating about guns (e.g., N-R) obviously or explicitly citing any such “power”, the law is presumptively Constitutional. E.g., a reference to “arming the Militia under I-1-16 would fill the bill.
Among I-8 is the power 3 – “To regulate Commerce . . . among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”. Here, the trick is to plausibly legislate. Suppose, for example, that Congress authorized truck drivers to carry in interstate commerce (including Indian reservations). That would be plausible. Yet it seems absurd that because Colt shipped my revolver I bought from PA-SportingGoods, I may stroll across the bridge to buy an ice cream cone in NJ “in interstate commerce”. Here, I think, we likely agree that Congress ought to be far more careful to legislate with a plausible basis to a Constitutionally enumerated power.
I fear that if Congress is not careful in this regard, State judges, Federal District and Circuit judges will all cheerfully convict carriers finding the purported pretextual power too thin to withstand challenge. Should this happen, we will spend a decade or two fighting to SCOTUS where we might win; but no reason to feel confident.
I would rather see Congress legislate a series of protected activities each with a distinct Constitutional basis. E.g., one for truck drivers, and the like, under an interstate commerce pretext. Another for those bearing a CWP under the full-faith-and-credit clause. Another for males between the ages of 21 – 45 to open-carry under the “arm the militia” clause. And, finally, a pretextually weak omnibus clause that tries to cover everybody; e.g., the female Vermont hermit who wanders into NY hunting with her shotgun.
Most carriers that States would like to persecute would fall under one of the well-founded protected activities. I.e., the carrier would be either: engaged in interstate commerce; bear a CWP; be a male between 21 – 45; or whatever. Prosecutors would be reluctant to challenge most of the victims their police encounter. Their only alternative would be to look for victims who could lay claim to the pretextually weak omnibus clause (the female Vermont hermit). My expectation is that they would realize that they couldn’t accomplish much by prosecuting only these few cases where they would have a plausible argument.
Under current jurisprudence, the fact you crossed state lines means that you are engaged in interstate commerce. The fact that the gun was produced in an interstate market means that the feds can regulate it. You should read Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) to understand the outermost bounds of the Commerce Clause as understood by courts.
Not saying I agree with these cases, I don’t, but I am saying it is important to understand the field of battle, especially if it is not favorable to you.
Unless you or Ted Cruz can mind control Supreme Court justices, states rights aren’t coming back without an Article V convention, which is about as likely.
But you go ahead and cling to your broken dreams.
Been ready for it for decades before I even owned handguns, and I’m a New Yorker.
I did get a letter from GOA requesting that I mail pre-addressed cards to my state reps asking them to support the reciprocity. In my state, it may be worthless, but we’ve had some successes lately, compared to where we’ve been anyway. Problem is, any successes we’ve made are dependent on the local level actually abiding by the new law.
I got something like that from the NRA. It had carbon copies for different politicians.
That’s the great thing about the House bill. You get to sue governments that violate your rights under the statute for money, including attorney’s fees. The cause of action could be worded better, but it’s definitely better than the nothing in the Senate bill.
“Force states to allow dangerous people to carry guns.” If they didn’t have lies they wouldn’t have anything. People are so fricken gullible.
You hit the nail on the head, all that remains for them to do is lie.
Gun-grabbers, by definition, believe that everyone who owns or carries a firearm is dangerous (except for
demi-godslaw enforcement officers). Thus, gun-grabbers will claim that they are not lying at all.
Where it gets really fun: when certain law enforcement officers do not even trust law enforcement officers to carry. A state police officer who attends my church is passionately opposed to concealed carry in church because he supposedly knows two or three cops who negligently fired their handguns. He doesn’t even trust other cops to carry in church so he sure as Hell doesn’t trust the bumbling parishioners to carry a handgun. (Apologies for the Hell reference in the context of carrying concealed in church.)
Note: a friend of mine is a retired deputy correctly predicted that my church member (who is a state police officer) would not trust anyone else to be armed in church. Apparently, state police personnel commonly have a superiority complex.
Oh they don’t like cops having guns either. They would like to see police officers armed with whistles and nerf batons then politely ask criminals to stop violent crimes if it doesnt offend their sense of identity and lack of involved fathers.
“He doesn’t even trust other cops to carry in church so he sure as Hell doesn’t trust the bumbling parishioners to carry a handgun.”
No problem, he can just demand to know if they are armed, then seize their weapons. No wait, there is no Duty to Inform for cops or retired cops.
Anyway, the state cop can demand to know if you are armed, then forcibly seize your weapon, or just blow you away if you “resist.” That’s how Illinois state Rep. Brandon Phelps wrote his concealed carry bill in 2013, just how the police unions wanted it.
Whimsical anecdotes and folk tales from the Good Christian Hypocrites in small town Illinois that sold out Otis McDonald.
Yes, I want to shove my 2A up their asses so they can see what it feels like for a change.
Honestly, I think it’s unlikely that this passes – this is a hill that the Dems will die for (unlike HPA, which I think would be a lot easier to pass), but if the GOP is going to push it forward then we might as well give it our best shot.
And just why wouldn’t this pass? The Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the Presidency. ANY Republican that won’t vote for a pro-2A bill needs to be put out of office via the primary process, and replaced with someone more amenable to the Second Amendment.
“And just why wouldn’t this pass?”
I’ll let you in on a dirty little secret: far too many Republicans are elitists in their own right. They don’t want the working class to fully avail themselves of their unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
Of course most will never admit this publicly.
It will likely pass the House.
The Republicans don’t have the 60 Senators required to over-come a Senate filibuster.
At least a few GOP Senators are likely to defect. Susan Collins come to mind. Alaska Bimbo and McLame also come to mind, but their states are VERY pro-gun, so they might not be their usual idiotic selves. Manchin might vote in favor because he likes his job.
Patriot: You are focusing on the right point. Each of our federal legislators is interested in exactly 1 thing: being re-elected. Every representative is up for re-election in just over a year; campaigning will start in about a year. 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election.
As a secondary matter, the individual Republican legislators are interested in retaining a majority in their respective chamber. The House will probably remain in GOP hands; the Senate has a majority of just 2; it could fall to the Democrats. Those of us with Republican Representatives or Senators need to remind them that we PotG EXPECT them to urge Ryan and McConnell to push N-R. They have about 1 year. If Ryan and McConnell fail to deliver by primary day, we will punish the GOP by running fresh faces against the incumbents. If the incumbents are nominated, we will withdraw our support giving their Democrat opponents an improved chance of bumping the GOP. McConnell can’t risk this threat. Therefore, McConnell will have to consider whipping his caucus into passing an N-R bill.
We need to bear in mind that guns are NOT a “pork” issue. Not a single Congress-critter will have to spend a single dollar on N-R at the expense of sending that dollar to his campaign contributors. Liberty is not a subject of Congressional power that needs to be rationed like federal spending. The GOP has no excuse for not delivering N-R (or any other gun-rights legislation).
When we are forced to fight for “Gun Rights” legislation we have already lost. Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are, as Robert so eloquently phrases, natural, civil and Constitutionally protected. The only reason we are having to “fight” is because some of us have allowed our representatives to usurp those rights in the first place. Shame on us. The only real fight we should be engaged in is that which eliminates all laws which infringe upon the natural right to keep and bear arms and violate the 2nd Amendment. None of the other rights so protected in the Bill of Rights are restricted from the free exercise thereof in any way. Even Scalia got that one wrong.
I’ll call kamala and feinstein right way!
Naw, waste of time. But I will write a check to the NRA and a few other deserving organizations!
“Either states’ rights matter, or they don’t.”
They matter until they infringe on Constitutionally protected rights, as incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment.
The bill proposed is a perfectly appropriate way to negate the obvious infringements of certain states like Illinois.
I cringe every time someone claims that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. Really? Here are the consequences of that position … states can:
— try you 15 times to convict you
— apply cruel and unusual punishment
— impose excessive fines and penalties
— conduct unreasonable searches
— seize anything for any reason
— ban your religion
— ban free speech
— ban peaceably assemblies
— compel you to testify against yourself
— ban petitions to repeal state laws
— ban petitions to pass state laws
— force you to house state police officers
Shall I continue?
You’ll have to. Just keep in mind that you’re preaching to the same people who are clamoring for federal action while simultaneously screaming about individual and state rights to permit/ban any given thing.
POTG are a varied bunch and are as inconsistent as any other niche political group
I am more worried about IF reciprocity were to pass once the Democrats come back in to power they will implement “minimum standards” on carry (at least to carry across state lines) to make it burdensome as possible to acquire a license, like mandating $1,000 fees and 6 months or more of training. Maybe even mandating more absurdity on top of that.
Opening Pandora’s box like this will give the government mandate to regulate it to death and you know they will.
Opening Pandora’s box like this will give the government mandate to regulate it to death and you know they will.
I have been against national reciprocity for this very reason. Once made law its open to further regulation and interpretation. Better to just revisit that whole “shall not be infringed” thing rather than continue to convolute the issue.
Let’s see. How many times in the last 30 years have Democrats in Washington D.C. acted upon requests from constituents to roll back gun-control laws? Answer: ZERO times.
The Democrats in D.C. have shown us that they will never, ever vote to roll back gun-control laws, no matter how many seats in the House and Senate it costs them. I therefore see no point in writing/calling Democrat Representatives and Senators and telling them to roll back gun-control laws. Direct that effort to Republican politicians.
Better yet, take fence-sitters to a gun range and add them to our ranks … and strengthen our voting power.
You and I generally agree on just about everything. Always enjoy reading your posts.
That said, I’d love for you to introduce all of us to one of these “fence sitters.” I keep hearing about them, but I’ve never met one. I know people who are in favor of, against, and indifferent to firearms ownership. But somebody without an opinion (well reasoned or otherwise) simply doesn’t exist.
There are a surprising number of people who have never given any serious thought about firearm ownership and therefore have no opinion. There are also a surprising number of people who have put some thought into firearm ownership and have not decided whether they are for or against. I consider both groups to be fence sitters since they have not actively come down on either side.
I am encouraging all of us to take everyone who is “neutral” about firearms ownership to a gun range and gently introduce them to shooting. I am quite confident that most of them will enjoy it and at least be amicable toward our right to keep and bear arms.
For that matter we should try to take people who are mildly on the side of gun-control. Many of them have zero experience and a little responsible instruction and shooting practice might be all it takes to win them over to our side as well.
Next time you take one of these unicorns to the range, please write up an article to be shared here on TTAG
Hah! Will do!
I know a black guy who was very much against guns. I let him go on and on about it. Gun nuts are racists, etc. Then, after he ran out of steam, I told him how many guns I owned and why I owned each one; I had a good reason for each one. Then he started to think.
He admitted that in his community, law abiding upper middle class black men, that people didn’t own guns or know anything about them because of the image of a black man with a gun in popular culture is that of a thug.
The last time I talked to him, he said he wanted me to take him and his wife to the range to learn about guns because him and his wife had been talking about getting a gun for home defense. I haven’t yet because he isn’t great about making and following through with plans.
Even if he becomes a gun guy, is he likely to vote Republican? No, but if we convince a significant portion of Democrat voters to support the 2A or at least participate and see the stupidity of the other sides arguments, then maybe pro or just not anti 2A candidates will stand a chance in primaries.
Political analysis on complex national gun legislation from the white racist hick element in central and southern Illinois that sold out Otis McDonald.
Tell us all how it should work, according to the press release from Richard Pearson & ISRA. What’s the Big Picture?
There is no battle… Both the current administration and congress are disinterested in second amendment issues aside from light lip service to keep the zealots up in arms
I’m sure everybody is shocked though; given that congress won’t even tackle the ACA (which got them a majority in both houses) and the administration is backing off issues like immigration (which got them into the White House in the first place.)
Not ready yet and I don’t feel like I need to be ready. 1. I doubt this will pass since Republicans aren’t pro-gun, just pro stringing us along to get our votes. 2. If it does pass, the states will sue instantly and put a freeze on it.
Frankly, I have at least 3-infinity years until I am allowed to carry in my slave state (MD resident) so I am in no rush to buy a good carry gun/holster. I’ll stick with my huge gun for home defense and get ready for national carry once it actually looks like it might happen.
About a year or two ago, almost no one would have predicted that a vulgar reality show host who tells it like it is and drops almost every un-PC comment imaginable to everyone in the Washington establishment, who had not zero, but negative support from his own party, who was viewed as a walking joke, is now POTUS. We live in strange times. I’m cautiously, but definitely, optimistic about this happening. At the very least, I’m pretty damn sure that this POTUS won’t back down and certainly won’t give any shit what the other side cares on the matter. It ain’t like he’s going to make more enemies on the the other side of the gate.
So if you take away the “billionaire” part, he’s just like 90% of the guys I know. Which is 100% opposite of any politician.
Which is why so many people voted for him.
And I would argue that is pretty much like 90% of the guys you know even with his billionaire status. Again, that is why so many people voted for him.
Make a move to protect the Constitution. Fighting these ‘little’ battles are of no consequence when some judge can bend the law to their will without recourse. We will have reciprocity for a minimum class of firearms … Worthless.
Our organizations should bring a suit that truly challenges the ability of the judicial system to infringe on 2A. If the court flaunts a verdict that is not sound hit them back with negligence, and ethical violation. 1. bring a complaint to the judge (won’t go too far) but try them in the media. 2. file to request to disbar any judge that is also a lawyer. When all these idiots loose the sense of protection that being a Democrat is providing now, maybe they will make the correct decisions.
If the Judicial branch is corrupted (Democrat first, Constitution last) its wrongness needs to be faced and reset. I think now is a good time. Tomorrow may be too late.
I love your sentiment. I fear that it will actually yield nothing.
I already got an email from my Rep. stating he was and is a co-sponsor of this legislation. The next hurdle is to encourage Lindsey Graham….
It won’t help in ILLinois. Sounds great in theory…
We’re fairly fortunate in that all of Illinois’ neighboring states recognize our CCL. But there are plenty of states that don’t.
It would surely help Illinois CCL holders who travel beyond the Midwest to other states, and it would help permit holders in other states who travel through Illinois. That’s pretty much the idea.
Right now the “A” Team at NRA HQ is working on this bill around the clock. Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham will solicit ideas from police unions to see what they would like in the bill for “officer safety” and incorporate those features, just like they did in Illinois’ carry bill. You can trust NRA to look out for your interests.
“It would surely help Illinois CCL holders who travel beyond the Midwest to other states…”
Do any Illinois CCL holders ever leave their trailer parks? You can’t carry your piece on a CTA bus to see a Cub’s game, so why not just live out your life in your all-white small town? It’s a scary world out there!
Despite living in a deep blue state, I’ll be writing my Representative and Senators to support this bill. I’ll also be encouraging friends and family all over to country to contact theirs.
Many of you might say that contacting a Democratic legislator about a pro-gun bill is pointless. I say it isn’t. If enough people speak up and get politically active, it shows that their anti-gun views aren’t as popular as they thought. Some Dems (especially those who lean more to the center, or those from red/purple states) may go ahead and support the bill to avoid getting ousted in the next election.
TL;DR: Contact your Representative and especially your Senators regardless of their party affiliations!
Here’s a pre-written letter you can use to send to your Representative regarding the house version of this bill: http://lettertocongress.me/2017/03/05/h-r-38-concealed-carry-reciprocity-act-of-2017/
52 Republican Senators (if they all hold firm) and maybe four Democrats who would join them equals 56 votes, tops, for national reciprocity. It will take 60 votes to pass this bill.
So, it isn’t going to happen. End of discussion.
I live in Massachusetts so yeah, I have no high hopes from my politicians. I suppose I can donate some more money for help pay for the lobbying effort, but trust me I of all people know how painful and unjust it feels to have my rights terminated because of an imaginary line on the ground because of the borders of 3 states.
I just don’t see us getting 8 Democrat votes in the Senate. Either way I carry everyday without the governments permission.
With the current reciprocity deals Florida has. Im good in over 35 states. Plus still hold my NYS full carry permit and non resident permit for Connecticut.
Selfishly I can make it my business to not be in any of the states that dont recognise my current permits.
My concern has never been being and or carrying where Im not legally allowed to do so. As I always carried in NYC anyway. But hated paying the additional costs for it monetarily. Occasionally I carried in NJ too when I had to for business in Newark. Im willing to take my chances elsewhere if I have to.
My only concern is while traveling by car and not having a loaded weapon on or near my person at all times.
We need 52 Repubs plus 8 Dims. I dont see any Dims going for this bill. We get rid of these Dims up for reelection in 2018. Dont say we cant. We as gun owners got Trump in after all.
Our best hope is that the Republicans take the senate in 2018 get 60+ seats and try again in 2019 or 2020.
Assuming Trump doesnt hang himself at some point in between. Although Im sure Pence would sign any bills that pass.
I happen to agree with Carl 101% as I do the same.
What we need and should demand is Constitutional Carry, all 50 states. Period.
I live in NY state, but i Identify as a Vermonter. Does that mean I can open carry in NY because in my heart I feel that I’m a vermonter?
Before the Civil War the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the Dred Scott case. The issue was could black people be citizens, could a slave become a citizen.
The Court said no and less than a decade later the Civil War was fought.
Of particular interest is the list of civil rights that citizens have and Chief Justice Taney said blacks couldn’t do those things.
A portion of the explanation written by Chief Justice Taney is quoted below. Note how twisted the logic used to say that blacks, former slaves, could not be citizens.
“For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police
Page 60 U. S. 417
regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”
Notice that it was accepted that citizens could without restriction “to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”