Updated Standing of H.R. 38

[Edwardteach72]

Ok so while a lot of good discussions going on in the other popular thread, (and also some sad pandas in there as well) it seems like a lot going on to pay attention to.

So here we are as of Jan. 5th 2017, 2:40 pm

H.R. 38—Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 | House Committee on Rules

 

[Edwardteach72]

not going to lie, this is ok my first time listening to one of these, but damn, this is getting slammed.

taking bets on if it will even pass the House.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

It'll probably go back and forth.

 

[Prudii]

I can't handle the stupid, I really did try and watch but the sheer ignorance from some people is astounding.

 

[Phazer]

Listened for awhile. It's too infuriating for me to listen to Leftists.

 

[Edwardteach72]

its like a train wreck -_-

 

[Devildog9999]

This entire damn government needs a full reboot. From top to bottom.

 

[Prudii]

Can it be stopped in this committee? Its just so frustrating.

EDIT: uhh did it just get passed out of committee?

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Can it be stopped in this committee? Its just so frustrating.

EDIT: uhh did it just get passed out of committee?

I just asked this on the other thread. All the shit we don't want seemed to be shot down. Wasn't clear on the "nics fix" though. I don't know if it was denied to be a part of hr 38, denied to be heard separately or just denied outright. That lady was double talking it seemed.

 

[Prudii]

They held a vote, the ayes won, one senator asked what was the schedule for tomorrow, the chairman told him, and then the meeting was adjourned.

I'm not entirely sure if the vote was to end the meeting or to move the bill out of committee.

 

[Saltwater60]

This entire damn government needs a full reboot. From top to bottom.

Yep. We need to stop paying taxes and shith the government down. No taxes no pay for these assholes.

 

[RBean]

I've rarely heard so many lies and so much misinformation at one time as from the demos in the meeting. You would think that the only people NY prohibits from concealed carry is criminals and all HB 38 does is allows criminals to carry guns. It is not mentioned that no matter how spotless your record is, if you are from out of state, you can't carry in NY period. And if you are from NY, mostly your permit is so restricted as to be virtually useless for the purpose of self defense. So NY denies most of it's citizens and all out of state people their constitutional rights. The NY liberals are either clueless or liars or both.

 

[Truebeliever]

Look, depending on the language, if it’s just bump stocks and no overreaching law, I would make the trade. But that just me. I don’t trust it to be bump stocks and an NICS Check that can’t be manipulated to beyond its original purpose.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Look, depending on the language, if it’s just bump stocks and no overreaching law, I would make the trade. But that just me. I don’t trust it to be bump stocks and an NICS Check that can’t be manipulated to beyond its original purpose.

Look if it's just pistol grips and not all scary features I would make that trade

^pretty much what you are saying

 

[DoD1776]

THIS Is going to be a cluster fuck. Some points are valid that are brought up and some aren’t. There should be a federal law if this were to ever pass and have it so if you go out of states you need to abide by this (fill in the blank) law. But that’s just my cup of tea.

 

[DoD1776]

Yep. We need to stop paying taxes and shith the government down. No taxes no pay for these assholes.

Then the government won’t have any use for us..

 

[Truebeliever]

Look if it's just pistol grips and not all scary features I would make that trade

^pretty much what you are saying

No, I stating bump stocks which are a mechanical functional feature if written correctly and not cosmetic or “scary”. It’s an actual functioning part that intentionally increases the rate of fire. Are bump stocks common yet? Are they truly necessary for effective self defense which a semi auto rifle with pistol grips are commonly used for such purposes? Every bump stock I know of is an ADDEd feature and not a standard function of the weapon unlike pistol grips or other “evil” features

The trade doesn’t have to be a ban but make it a class 3.

And for me, to carry across state lines without worry about some BS law, I would make the trade. Oh, wait. I can pretty much do that. With some trepidation, that is. But to give that ability to CCW permits nationwide. I would make the trade. To let you carry in NYC if you felt the need even if your permit is from upstate. I would make the trade.


And if you don’t think bump stocks aren’t going to be banned on the state level, you are crazy

 

[Edwardteach72]

No, I stating bump stocks which are a mechanical functional feature if written correctly and not cosmetic or “scary”. It’s an actual functioning part that intentionally increases the rate of fire. Are bump stocks common yet? Are they truly necessary for effective self defense which a semi auto rifle with pistol grips are commonly used for such purposes? Every bump stock I know of is an ADDEd feature and not a standard function of the weapon unlike pistol grips or other “evil” features

The trade doesn’t have to be a ban but make it a class 3.

And for me, to carry across state lines without worry about some BS law, I would make the trade. Oh, wait. I can pretty much do that. With some trepidation, that is. But to give that ability to CCW permits nationwide. I would make the trade. To let you carry in NYC if you felt the need even if your permit is from upstate. I would make the trade.


And if you don’t think bump stocks aren’t going to be banned on the state level, you are crazy

Didn't know i the second says any thing about necessity

Ha yea so the ATF has ruled not once but two separate times that there is nothing class 3 about bump stocks. Ie the way the NFA laws are written it doesn't fall under it, but yea sure let's just arbitrarily add more shit to something we should still be trying to get rid of (repeal the hughes amendment and the NFA)

Guess what friend I have some bad news for you, they are already illegal to have on a rifle here in New York. But I guess you like the double super illegal approaches

Glad to hear you are willing to cut away at more and more rights as a trade off for a few others. Hey word it how ever you want to make yourself feel more noble, but let's call it what it is, bump stocks don't affect you personally because you personally don't care about them so screw the whole of that means we can get a little bit over here, but say we get thst national reciprocity and few years into it something bad happens what's next something happens and then you are willing to sacrifice national reciprocity to idk save semi auto hunting rifles from being banned

 

[Phazer]

Then the government won’t have any use for us..

Yes they will.....for fertilizer.

 

[DoD1776]

Yes they will.....for fertilizer.

Exactly

 

[Marine Cpl]

I see both sides to this argument. One side is never give up anything and the other side is give up something that has no consequence to most people to gain many things.

On the surface, giving up something sounds terrible. But if you look at it, it's giving up something but moving 10 steps ahead while the other is giving up nothing and not moving ahead at all.

The bill isn't giving up bump stocks. All it does is define them and require crime reporting when one is used.

If for argument's sake everything is shot down because you aren't willing to give that inch of reporting one if used in a crime which will be reported anyway, you gain nothing.

If it passes since it would be reported anyway (you'd be extremely naive to think that it wouldn't), you gain concealed carry in all states along with the ability to carry standard capacity magazines in all states along with the ability to carry those standard capacity magazines in fully featured AR pistols in all states.

Now what happens is that due to reciprocity, AW pistol laws in states are rendered toast since many rifles are available in pistol format. Ak's, AR's ect.

Which would serve the cause better in gaining steps ahead? Would it be better to have fully featured AR's with collapsible pistol braces that can be used as a stock anyway or would it be better to have nothing and pretend that bump stocks will not be reported for statistics?

Just speaking for myself, it would be for this to pass. I'd much rather have the ability to carry a loaded Glock with a standard capacity magazine along with having a fully loaded AR pistol of any length of barrel I choose which for all intents and purposes is a rifle with a standard capacity magazine in my trunk in all states including my own.

It's a no-brainer.

 

[livingston]

Go to 15 minutes on you tube and follow along .... Word for word from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense talking points ...Must have written it for this fellow to read ....
Why Congress Should 'Fix NICS' And Reject The NRA's So-Called Concealed Carry 'Reciprocity' Bill | HuffPost
· 31 states and the District of Columbia require safety training to carry concealed guns in public and 21 of those states and DC require live-fire training experience.

· 35 states and the District of Columbia prohibit abusive boyfriends (in additional to husbands) convicted of abuse and/or subject to domestic violence restraining orders from carrying concealed guns in public. 28 states and DC prohibit stalkers from carrying concealed guns.

· 34 states and the District of Columbia only allow people aged 21 or older to carry concealed guns given that older teens commit homicide with a gun at a rate nearly four times higher than adults over the age of 21.

· 25 states and the District of Columbia allow law enforcement to prohibit people who pose a danger to the public from carrying concealed guns in public.

· 27 states and the District of Columbia prohibit people convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence from carrying concealed guns in public.

· Several states, including Maryland, require that an applicant for a concealed carry permit show “good cause” or specific need to carry firearms in public for self defense.

These laws all sound (and are) quite sensible, especially in light of the gun violence epidemic in states across the country. Yet, there are also 12 states that are “permit-less,” with absolutely no requirements at all to carry a hidden, loaded gun, including eight that have perplexingly dismantled their permit system since 2015. As one case study shows, in just six months after Missouri repealed its permit requirement, aggravated assaults with a gun increased over 22 percent in St. Louis, while assaults not involving a gun decreased over the same time period.

All of this is to say that Concealed Carry “Reciprocity” is a fallacy: It would actually force states that have made a determination that certain individuals under certain circumstances should be precluded from carrying a hidden, loaded gun in their state, to allow a stranger from another state to carry a hidden, loaded gun without any standards whatsoever. It is a race to a land of lawlessness, where the NRA contends we will all be safer, erroneously so, because in fact, research has shown that more hidden, loaded guns in public makes us all less safe, not more.

 

[livingston]

Go to 35 min mark ....
Then think about this ...
Mark Assini concedes race to Rep. Louise Slaughter
Nov. 12, 2014
Rep. Louise Slaughter declared victory in her tight race for the 25th Congressional District on Election Day.

On Wednesday, her win became certain.

Monroe County election commissioners spent about 90 minutes scanning 2,804 ballots that had yet to be counted to affirm that the 14-term Democrat had beaten her Republican challenger, Gates Supervisor Mark Assini, by a margin of 869 votes.
Voting matters folks ....

 

[MothMan]

DOJ, ATF announce plan to review legal status of bump-fire stocks

 

[camper4lyfe]

I see both sides to this argument. One side is never give up anything and the other side is give up something that has no consequence to most people to gain many things.

On the surface, giving up something sounds terrible. But if you look at it, it's giving up something but moving 10 steps ahead while the other is giving up nothing and not moving ahead at all.

The bill isn't giving up bump stocks. All it does is define them and require crime reporting when one is used.

If for argument's sake everything is shot down because you aren't willing to give that inch of reporting one if used in a crime which will be reported anyway, you gain nothing.

If it passes since it would be reported anyway (you'd be extremely naive to think that it wouldn't), you gain concealed carry in all states along with the ability to carry standard capacity magazines in all states along with the ability to carry those standard capacity magazines in fully featured AR pistols in all states.

Now what happens is that due to reciprocity, AW pistol laws in states are rendered toast since many rifles are available in pistol format. Ak's, AR's ect.

Which would serve the cause better in gaining steps ahead? Would it be better to have fully featured AR's with collapsible pistol braces that can be used as a stock anyway or would it be better to have nothing and pretend that bump stocks will not be reported for statistics?

Just speaking for myself, it would be for this to pass. I'd much rather have the ability to carry a loaded Glock with a standard capacity magazine along with having a fully loaded AR pistol of any length of barrel I choose which for all intents and purposes is a rifle with a standard capacity magazine in my trunk in all states including my own.

It's a no-brainer.

Logic has to place on this forum

 

[Phazer]

Logic has to place on this forum

Yep. Occasionally logic raises its head around here. But...it is soon summarily whacked with a 2x4.

 

[Truebeliever]

Didn't know i the second says any thing about necessity

Ha yea so the ATF has ruled not once but two separate times that there is nothing class 3 about bump stocks. Ie the way the NFA laws are written it doesn't fall under it, but yea sure let's just arbitrarily add more shit to something we should still be trying to get rid of (repeal the hughes amendment and the NFA)

Guess what friend I have some bad news for you, they are already illegal to have on a rifle here in New York. But I guess you like the double super illegal approaches

Glad to hear you are willing to cut away at more and more rights as a trade off for a few others. Hey word it how ever you want to make yourself feel more noble, but let's call it what it is, bump stocks don't affect you personally because you personally don't care about them so screw the whole of that means we can get a little bit over here, but say we get thst national reciprocity and few years into it something bad happens what's next something happens and then you are willing to sacrifice national reciprocity to idk save semi auto hunting rifles from being banned

Yes, I know bump stocks are not class 3. But I would rather see them as class 3 than outright ban as what is rumored to be proposed.

I know “necessity” is not listed in the constitution but “common use “ is used in Heller and it is the difference between a comestic “feel good”BS ban as to a function of the weapon and being an effective self defense tool.

It’s being pragmatic. Are you going to be able to keep a bump stock next year? Not at the state level for sure.

And if the democrats can get 60 votes to overturn the bill if it becomes law to overcome a fillabuster they can do both anyway. They haven’t overturned FOPA have they?

Are you upset over FOPA? No new machine guns as result of trade off of being able to move guns across state lines? I would love to own a machine gun but I value being able to go across state lines more.

And what makes you think we can’t learn something from the democrats and chip away at their misconceptions of CCW rather than swing for the fended everytime. You don’t think we can give up bump stocks now and change the law later to get them back?
Maybe because you know how hard it is to change the law after it’s passed. That works both ways.

The current bill not only allows for CCW but a recourse if the state violates the law.

Do you think bump stocks won’t be banned at the state level? Could bump stocks be banned if the ATF just changes it’s mind as to its definition? Court challenges aside, it was Legal only because of their interpretation of the law.

And you are right. I don’t care about bump stocks if the definition of them isn’t misconstrued to ban other items. From a “spirit of the law” standpoint, the effect bump stocks simulate was already banned and it was a great work around.

If it wasn’t for Paul Ryan’s let the ATF regulate it move, it would have been banned already and if we lose the house next year, it will be banned.

Let’s get the more important win.

And as far as caring what effects me argument. I don’t think many here gave a darn about NYC’s rifle ban until the SAFE act made it effect them too.

I’m one of the lucky few that were not effected by such laws until I retired this fall. And even then, if I continue to qualify, my current firearms are not really effected by the law. I still have my standard capacity magazines legally but still in the fight for others. I talked to a State senators representative last night at a meeting. He knows my position on SAFE and my requests for a viable “work around” to the SAFE act.

I wish he would listen but I doubt he will.

I understand why the need to dig in our heels on most things on this issue but if properly worded this would be a big win for us if passed. Bump stocks are worth the trade off. Imagine the democrats dilemma if the language of the bill made bump stocks Legal if they successfully challenge any part of the law in court.

Or the big win we had with the addition of the sunset clause in the Clinton magazine ban. It was almost permanent.

We are winning. Let’s get national carry with protections.

 

[livingston]

Why Concealed Carry Reciprocity Might Spell Trouble for Gun Owners
Why Concealed Carry Reciprocity Might Spell Trouble for Gun Owners
by Jim Stinson | Updated 05 Dec 2017 at 8:59 PM


A bill that would allow gun owners to carry a concealed firearm in every state is in jeopardy this week, the victim of a possible Democratic trick, said Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.).

Massie claimed in a Facebook post on Saturday that the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, House Resolution 38, was being used as a “Trojan horse” to carry through a regulatory bill that could deprive thousands of Americans of their right to own guns.The bill could also force states and federal agencies to classify more Americans as "fugitives," or too mentally unstable, barring them from gun ownership, Massie told LifeZette.
The Senate version of H.R. 4477 is co-sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). The Senate version will send $625 million over five years to states to expand the national background check database, Massie said.

The congressman said he is perplexed as to why Republican leadership in the House and the Senate is rushing to enhance NICS, when former President Barack Obama used the system to bar gun ownership based on what Social Security reported to the database on mental disabilities.
Massie said he even suspects concealed carry could be stripped out of the final bill, the apparent aim of Feinstein and Schumer all along.

"The bill will advance former President Obama's agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veterans Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background-check database to deny gun purchases," Massie wrote. "It spends over half a billion dollars to collect more names to include in a list of people who will never be allowed to own a firearm. It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your Second Amendment rights."

The database bill is often nicknamed the Fix-NICS bill. And Massie isn't the only one complaining.


More at ..Why Concealed Carry Reciprocity Might Spell Trouble for Gun Owners

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Dumb question: Can the president veto portions of a bill and sign the rest into law or at least kick the bill back to the senate and house for changes if he doesn't like the bill as worded but otherwise wants it to become law?

 

[livingston]

Dumb question: Can the president veto portions of a bill and sign the rest into law or at least kick the bill back to the senate and house for changes if he doesn't like the bill as worded but otherwise wants it to become law?

Massie said he even suspects concealed carry could be stripped out of the final bill, the apparent aim of Feinstein and Schumer all along.