Posted on 12/06/2017 9:13:49 AM PST by Simon Green
With a bill to expand concealed carry protections across state lines set for a House floor vote on Wednesday, gun control advocates are opening their coffers in a bid to derail the measure.
The proposal, H.R. 38, has a block of Republican support and is on the House calendar for this week, prompting those against it to launch an offensive.
Both Everytown and Giffords have launched six-figure ad buys targeting members of Congress, in each case urging them to oppose concealed carry reciprocity. The groups have also taken to social media with the #StopCCR hashtag to publicize their efforts, offering suggested opposition statements to give to lawmakers.
“The ads call on voters to speak up about this dangerous bill and call on their leaders put the safety of communities before the interests of the gun industry,” said Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords.
Other groups, to include Prosecutors Against Gun Violence, fronted by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., and Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer, are slamming the legislation they say, “would impose weak gun laws on all 50 states.”
It should be noted that both Manhattan and Los Angeles have some of the country’s harshest laws when it comes to legal concealed carry.
On the opposite side of the political spectrum, the National Rifle Association is calling on members across a variety of channels to burn up the Congressional switchboard in support of the bill. Downplaying the addition of so-called FixNics background check system enhancement language to the reciprocity measure as a potential fly in the ointment that would turn off gun rights supporters, the organization says there are inaccuracies to claims it includes an Obama-style gun control push.
“This differs from former President Obama’s efforts, in which he attempted to administratively create new categories of individuals who were prohibited from possessing a firearm,” said the group in a statement rebutting comments from U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., saying the FixNics proposal, “is aimed squarely at individuals like the perpetrator of the recent murders in Texas, who should have been reported to NICS because of his disqualifying criminal history.”
Massie countered with a video arguing that adding any gun control language to the concealed carry reciprocity bill makes no sense and won’t help the measure gain support from Democrats in the Senate.
end all the unconstitutional ‘gun controls’ and give the nice Atf folks new, productive, lawful jobs somewhere else in the bureaucrappy (if there indeed be productive jobs in the bureaucrappy, ha!)
I sent my letter to my representatives last night.
For all the good it will do.
Geeez...can they just make it so a person can go from Texas to Maine without fear of being thrown in jail for a year for just the mere possession of an empty .22 case?
They wanted national gay marriage.
I wish it would, though. There is no possibility for me to have a right to carry in SC when I travel there, neither openly nor concealed. I don't own property in SC, which is the criteria for getting a license if you live out of state.
From the article:
“...adding any gun control language to the bill
won’t help gain support from Democrats...”
This process has disturbed me for decades. Im a disabled vet. Been this way since my last yr of active duty in 88. Was Tactical Intel Officer. Shot expert consistently throughout my military career. After reconstructive surgeries, worked as Insurance Investigator which sent me all over our Great Nation. This one time, I was sent to not so good neighborhood, being a white guy in suit driving white car, I was targeted by a bunch of thugs seeking financial gain by all means. After that, I obtained Concealed Carry License for my protection. Problem, there are 11 states plus D.C. that don’t recognize my CCL! 9 of 11 are the most dangerous states in our Union! We must have National Reciprocity. It’s the Constitutional thing to do. Semper Fi
. Gee, great law. More “unequal” protection under lawlessness.
It will probably pass the House, but no way it will get 60 votes (and that is required) in the Senate.
Actually, if you look at the language: (pasting from an earlier post)
reading the text of the bill, it says :
“...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, 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.”
That looks like the phrase “ 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” means that a CCW from *ANY* state is valid in all REGARDLESS of if the person is a RESIDENT of the state that issued...
Does anybody else read this the same way?
A conservative in occupied California (who has no option of going anywhere for the next couple of decades)..
They’ve snuck a gun control clause into this thing.
Beware!
Perhaps someone can help me understand why the “Full Faith and Credit Clause” (Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution does not already apply to reciprocity?
If this passes, why, there would be gun battles breaking out in the streets of Chicago. Oh, wait....
Even if they pass it I wouldnt touch NY, NJ, CA etc.
“Oh, the Bloombergs of the world have plenty enough money to shut down every single pro-RKBA law at the Federal level. Including this one. I’m not expecting this to pass, given GOPe.”
McCain, Corker, Flake,Collins etc will kill it.
I hear ya, and concur. I do my best to avoid those places anyway - their "leaders" do not seem to like people like me...
Now, as per the ability to REGULATE (make regular, aka standard\uniform) STATE law....ala ‘driving’, marriage (but NOT occupational licenses. Whom said govt was consistent, let alone logical).
“...shall not be infringed.” trumps (excuse the pun) H.R. 38 or any FEDERAL ‘gun law’.
But, I’m sure that’s not the way this is intended or will be enforced.
Now, if we want to start talking the abortion of logic vis a vie ‘incorporation’
I read that to mean that if you are a legal resident of say NY, IL, CA, MA, or NJ - and you have non-resident concealed carry license from UT or FL that allows you to carry in 38+ other states - you are still screwed.
You are a RESIDENT of a gun hating state, and therefore they will not recognize your 2nd amendment rights.
That's my read. If someone can correct me otherwise, I would be happy to be wrong.
You are probably right, *BUT*- parsing the language:
(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm;
-— California does; it’s hard to get without being connected, but it *IS* possible
or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the
State for lawful purposes.”
So California *DOES* have a statue, and the wording uses *A* state:
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...
I mean you are probably right, but the wording says that IF your state and any statue that permits carrying AND you have a valid license from “a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm “..
I am hoping that the NRA hired lawyers smart enough to word it precisely in this way, to throw a lifeline to us ‘behind enemy lines.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.