This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 12/04/2017 4:02:05 PM PST by The Pack Knight
The House of Representatives will vote on national gun-carry reciprocity and gun background check fix bills this week.
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 and the Fix NICS Act will be combined and likely voted on Wednesday, a GOP aide told the Washington Free Beacon Monday.
"It is my understanding they may be combined," the aide said. "Rules is meeting at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday. They have both. Floor vote should be Wednesday."
The House Committee on Rules website shows the texts of the two bills combined as well as an amendment filed by Rep. Dina Titus (D., Nev.) that would strip the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act from the bill. The Republican-controlled committee is likely to defeat the amendment and move the combined bill to the House floor where it is currently scheduled for a vote on or after Wednesday. The bill, which currently has 213 cosponsors, is likely to pass the House vote.
It will then move to the Senate where it will face an uphill battle to garner the 60 votes necessary for passage.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.), who introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, expressed optimism about the growing momentum behind the bill since it passed the Judiciary Committee last week.
"An overwhelming majority of Americans support concealed carry reciprocity. Momentum, common sense, and the facts are on our side," Rep. Hudson said in a statement. "I want to thank Speaker Paul Ryan for his strong support of the Second Amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support this common-sense bill to protect law-abiding citizens."
Gun-rights activists and gun-control activists have fiercely disagreed over national gun-carry reciprocity. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has made the issue its top priority and announced its intention to get a vote on the issue before the end of the year during its convention earlier this year.
"Our number-one legislative priority remains right-to-carry reciprocity," Chris Cox, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, told the Washington Free Beacon at the time.
The NRA and other gun rights proponents have pointed to the case of Shaneen Allen, a Philadelphia mother arrested for carrying a gun in New Jersey despite having a valid Pennsylvania gun-carry permit. Allen spent 40 days in prison and lost her job before being pardoned by Gov. Chris Christie (R., N.J.). Allen was punished, activists said, because New Jersey refuses to recognize gun-carry permits of law-abiding citizens from other states.
Cox cheered passage of the bill through committee last week as a defense of the rights of people like Allen.
"Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines without fear of unknowingly breaking the law," Cox said. "For years, the National Rifle Association's top legislative priority has been to pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity, a much-needed solution to the confusing patchwork of state and local gun laws. The NRA and law-abiding gun owners across America are excited to see this important legislation headed for a vote in the House of Representatives."
Gun-control activists, on the other hand, have decried national gun-carry reciprocity as "dangerous" and are actively opposing its passage.
"With Las Vegas and Sutherland Springs still in shock over their communities' losses, Congress is actually moving to weaken our public safety," former congresswoman Gabby Giffords said in a statement. "It's an extraordinary violation of the public's trust. Elections have consequences. We will be watching—and acting."
Giffords's self-named gun control group is now running TV ads opposing the national gun-carry reciprocity bill in Minnesota and New Jersey swing districts, a radio ad in Southern California, as well as a digital ad campaign.
The Fix NICS Act, which seeks to better hold military, state, and federal agencies accountable for turning over criminal records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), has not faced the same opposition. Gun-rights and gun-control activists have supported its passage in the wake of the shooting at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., which left 26 dead. The shooter was able to pass background checks and purchase firearms because the Air Force had not shared his disqualifying criminal records with the system.
Last month, two former special agents for a Defense Department law enforcement agency told the Washington Free Beacon they had warned about issues with record sharing between the military and the FBI but were ignored. A review of decades of reports from the military's watchdog agency backs up the agents' claims and shows negligence from all branches continued in spite of repeated warnings and policy changes.
Rep. John Culberson (R., Texas), who introduced the Fix NICS Act, said it will address the problems in the system and save lives.
"Had existing law been enforced, the terrible tragedy in Sutherland Springs, Texas, would have never occurred," Culberson said. "There is simply no excuse for the ongoing negligence of criminal history reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). I'm greatly encouraged by this bipartisan effort to ensure federal and state authorities enforce existing law. I urge my colleagues in Congress to support this lifesaving piece of legislation."
The NRA, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety have all expressed support for the Fix NICS Act.
That said, maybe I am missing the point, but I don't really get a lot of the excitement over this bill. It only guarantees the right to carry concealed in another state IF: (1) you have a carry permit that allows you to carry in your state or your state has permitless carry; and (2) the other state allows carry in some form. But most of us who live in "shall issue" or "constitutional carry" states already have reciprocity with most if not all other gun-friendly states.
Note that this bill does NOT require a state to allow you to carry if it does not allow its own citizens to carry. While it requires "may issue" states to honor permits from "shall issue" states, it does NOT require a "no issue" state to do so. There are no "no issue" states right now, but I'll bet there will be a push in some of these states to go back to "no issue" in order to defeat reciprocity under this bill. I'm not sure I like the idea of incentivizing a rollback of gun rights when so much progress has been made even in anti-gun states.
As I said, I am in favor of anything that advances our rights, but it seems like there are a lot bigger fish to fry than this. Frankly, I'd rather see Congress focused on cleaning up or repealing federal laws than interfering in state laws. There is a target-rich environment when it comes to nonsensical federal laws that should be reformed or repealed, such as:
- End the NFA restrictions of short barrel rifles and shotguns.
- End restrictions for importation of non-NFA firearms.
- Either repeal the NFA transfer tax or replace it with an application fee.
- End restrictions on "armor piercing ammunition"
“No issue” is unconstitutional. Illinois went concealed carry because the other choice presented them by the courts was Constitutional Carry. The last refuge of the anti carry scoundrels is in “may issue” states like MD and NJ.
National status opens up DC, California, and New York. That is key start. Make my NV, UT, and OR permits valid in any state.
“The NRA, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Giffords, and Everytown for Gun Safety have all expressed support for the Fix NICS Act.”
Do not like.
Whatever it is, if Giffords and Schumer like it - shun it as hard you possibly can.
This is good. Pass it!
Oh yeah!
I sure hope they get it right.
Screw the LASD, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s refusal to grant permits to regular citizens.
We’ll end run him. It’s decades past time too.
The Supreme Court has not weighed in on that yet. Heller only held that there is a right to carry inside the home, and did not address the right to carry outside the home.
The Seventh Circuit (which includes Illinois) and the D.C. Circuit have held that the 2nd Amendment protects at least some right to carry in public, while the 9th Circuit has held that the 2nd Amendment does not protect “in any degree” the right to carry in public.
The Supreme Court denied cert in the 9th Circuit case, so, as it stands, California, Hawaii, and the other states in the 9th Circuit could become “no issue” states tomorrow if their legislatures chose.
Its not a complete solution, but it is a big step in the right direction. Will take some of the threat away from the Gestapo states if you are just passing through.
I would expect there to be a push in California to respond to this by abolishing carry permits entirely and simply prohibiting any public carry.
The 9th Circuit has given them the green light by holding there is no constitutional right to carry in public, and, amazingly, the Supreme Court couldn’t put together four votes to grant cert on that case.
I’d be keeping a close eye out if I lived in California, though I suppose that is the normal state of affairs for any freedom-lover living in that state.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
And they might do just that, although that’s probably tempting fate. On the other hand the 9 political hacks in black muumuus might not take another 2A case for 60 years.
Politics is a scam and we’re suckers for playing.
Speaking of politics being a scam, I wonder how many of our priorities will pass in just the House or just the Senate. I also wonder how often that was the plan all along.
Isn’t it rich that an entire Political Party cannot comprehend the meaning of one simple four word Phrase “Shall Not Be Infringed”? The first word really hangs them up, but the last word really confuses them.
SHALL: verb as required will, by compulsion will, by imperative will, mandatorily will, obligatorily will
Associated concepts: shall be lawful, shall be legal, shall become, shall give, shall have, shall not, shall perform, shall work.
INFRINGED: act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: “his legal rights were being infringed” ·
synonyms: restrict · limit · curb · check · encroach on · undermine · erode · diminish · weaken · impair · damage · compromise
And the really angry part is how the Left will fight to the death over abortion and make it some type of "right", when there is ZERO mention of abortion the Constitution. Forcing taxpayers to subsidize it and making it legal across all 50 states.
Republicans and conservatives need to start getting emotional and start using the Left's tactics on abortion and use them for defending the 2nd Amendment. Stop quoting John Lott and spouting statistics about how guns save lives. Start talking about how it's BS that Hollywood celebrities and politicians get armed security detail but not you to protect your home and kids.
California can beat this by simply ceasing permit issuance (new and renewals). Then reciprocity goes away. They’ve already pretty much banned open carry.
Well, I’d hope that wasn’t the outcome, but I don’t see how the Supreme Court gets around Congress, if Congress passes a law that doesn’t violate the U. S. Constitution.
I don’t know how California gets around this either.
If Congress says all states must abide by other state’s carry permits, then it’s the law of the land.
The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be cited, if Congress comes down with legitimate legislation.
The Constitution doesn’t say concealed carry shall be prohibited.
Oh, they will take another 2A case sooner than that. They won’t be able to avoid it as the circuit split on the scope of the 2A grows. The question is who will be on the Court?
I still don’t get the denial of cert in the 9th Circuit case. There is no way you can square the 9th Circuit’s decision with MacDonald’s holding that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual and fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and that the right to self-defense is “basic.” Alito write that decision, Roberts and Kennedy joined in it, and Thomas concurred (because he thinks incorporoation should come under the 14th Amendment’s “privileges and immunities” clause instead of “substantive due process.). Thomas and Gorsuch both dissented from the denial of cert in the 9th circuit case, and I’d have a hard time believing Alito didn’t vote to grant cert when he wrote MacDonald, so it must have been Roberts and Kennedy against granting cert.
I don’t agree.
If Congress passes a law that states “States Shall Honor”, then states MUST honor.
A state may refuse to issue it’s own permits, but that doesn’t free it from having to honor other state’s permits.
The Second Amendment would not come into play either.
A state would have to argue that the Constitution expressly forbids a state being required to honor other state’s permits.
Lets see them prove that.
What Congress brings into law, is the law of the land unless it can be proven it is unConstitutional.
A precedent has been set. Marriage certificates must be honored. And more recently than that, all homosexual marriage certificates must be honored.
Lets see states claim that now they don’t have to honor other states “certificates”.
It’s my take that there are counties in California, where concealed carry is allowed.
We’ll see how they wiggle out of that.
I’ll admit, that wording was sure framed incorrectly.
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.