HR 38 passes one hurdle

The moment Trump signs it will be challenged at the district level federal court by a judge. Probably the Judge from Hawaii. The problem is will SCOTUS take the challenge, or punt.
 
The moment Trump signs it will be challenged at the district level federal court by a judge. Probably the Judge from Hawaii. The problem is will SCOTUS take the challenge, or punt.

Will be challenged by the Attorney Geberal of a "May Issue" state in the Federal District Court of that state. I agree, will most likely be Hawaii.

Even if passed and signed into law, I would not rely on the statute until it passed muster in the courts.
 
Last edited:
Iageee that a legal challenge will be made within hours of it being signed into law, if it ever is. Highly likely that the House will pass its bill, up then there is the Senate.

The Senate Bill is in committee and seems to be going nowhere. Amber they awe waiting for the House to pass the Bill and to send it up to the Senate for action. That could be because the House Bill seems to be better than the Senate Bill in several ways.

Then the challenge will be getting to the Senate floor for a vote. Remember that they need 60 votes to get to the floor. So. if all 52 Republicans vote for closure it, they need 8 Democrats to vote for it. Are there 8 Dems who would do that? I don't know.
 
Iageee that a legal challenge will be made within hours of it being signed into law, if it ever is. Highly likely that the House will pass its bill, up then there is the Senate.

The Senate Bill is in committee and seems to be going nowhere. Amber they awe waiting for the House to pass the Bill and to send it up to the Senate for action. That could be because the House Bill seems to be better than the Senate Bill in several ways.

Then the challenge will be getting to the Senate floor for a vote. Remember that they need 60 votes to get to the floor. So. if all 52 Republicans vote for closure it, they need 8 Democrats to vote for it. Are there 8 Dems who would do that? I don't know.

Does the Senate still need 60 for cloture?

Back when Senate was controlled by the other party a reciprocity bill did get more than 50 votes but there was a parliamentary maneuver to require 60 votes for passage.
 
Yes, 60 votes are needed. If they get that and it comes up for a vote on the floor 51 votes will make it a done deal.
 
Has anybody else seen the Facebook post by Congressman Thomas Massie of KY? He has posted that the House has accepted an amendment by Feinstein and Schumer called the "Fix NICS Act". This would extend the ability to make a person prohibited along the lines of the administrative actions taken by the previous administration.

He has posted similar information on his Twitter account, so I'm taking it as a legitimate piece of information. There is nothing on his official House of Representatives page.

You can see the Twitter posting here, without having to sign up for Twitter or log in to anything.

This is just the sort of thing that I feared would creep into this bill.
 
Last edited:
Has anybody else seen the Facebook post by Congressman Thomas Massie of KY? He has posted that the House has accepted an amendment by Feinstein and Schumer called the "Fix NICS Act". This would extend the ability to make a person prohibited along the lines of the administrative actions taken by the previous administration.

He has posted similar information on his Twitter account, so I'm taking it as a legitimate piece of information. There is nothing on his official House of Representatives page.

You can see the Twitter posting here, without having to sign up for Twitter or log in to anything.

This is just the sort of thing that I feared would creep into this bill.

I am not an expert at watching Bills go through Congress.

Currently, the Senate Reciprocity Bill has no Amendments
Amendments - S.446 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This is the Fix NICS Bill in the Senate, but I do not understand it
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/sites/default/files/Fix%20NICS%20Act%20Bill%20Text.pdf

This is the FIX NICS Bill in the House, I do not understand it either
Cosponsors - H.R.4477 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Fix NICS Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
 
Last edited:
This bill seems like the amendment he's talking about. I'm not sure that it does what he say it does. Presumably, he should know, but he may be misunderstanding the parts that refer to the heads of federal agencies.

I'm not sure if I'm duplicating what you've posted with this, as it certainly can get confusing with the different versions.

I don't know if Massie is over reacting, but this at least bears some watching.

I am not an expert at watching Bills go through Congress.

Currently, the Senate Reciprocity Bill has no Amendments
Amendments - S.446 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

This is the Fix NICS Bill, but I do not understand it
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/sites/default/files/Fix NICS Act Bill Text.pdf
 
FWIW, here is the text of the message from Massie

ALERT: Feinstein/Schumer sponsored gun legislation that amends the "Brady bill" will be added to Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill (HR 38 ) in the House this week.

As Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus, I'm blowing the whistle on the swamp. Last week, Republicans in the House fast tracked through committee HR 4477, a gun bill titled "fix-NICS." The Senate version of this bill is cosponsored by Senator Dianne Feintstein and Senator Chuck Schumer and it will send $625 million over 5 years to states to expand the national background check database. The bill will also advance former President Obama's agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veteran's Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background check database to deny gun purchases. The House bill is identical in every way to the Senate bill except the House bill will also commission a study on bump-stocks.

What you don't know, and what virtually no one in Washington wants you to know, is that House leadership plans to merge the fix-NICS bill with popular Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation, HR 38, and pass both of them with a single vote. Folks, this is how the swamp works. House leadership expects constituents to call their representatives demanding a vote on the reciprocity bill, when in fact the only vote will be on the two combined bills.

How fast did Fix-NICS, HR 4477, move through the Judiciary Committee? This bill broke the previous records for fast track legislation. It was voted out of committee within hours of being introduced in the House. Check the dates on this link: 400 Bad Request . That means the text of the bill wasn't even discoverable by the public on congress.gov until after the bill passed out of committee! The text was however available over in the Senate where you will find Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Chuck Schumer are cosponsors. 400 Bad Request

If that's not odd enough, consider this: the fix-NICS bill was introduced in the House by a Democrat two weeks ago. 400 Bad Request . But, in a very unusual move, the bill was re-introduced verbatim by a Republican two weeks later, with language added to it to commission a bump-stock study. Six Republicans in Judiciary Committee weren't persuaded by the switcheroo, and voted No. However, because every Democrat voted yes and some Republicans voted yes at the urging of the Chairman, the bill made it out of committee. The deed will be complete this week when the bill is quietly added to the Reciprocity bill, HR 38, and passed without the knowledge of those who would oppose the legislation if they knew what was in it.

To recap, what are some clues that you should be concerned with the fix-NICS bill?

(1) The first sentence after the title of the bill reads "Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended…"
(2) Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are cosponsors in the Senate.
(3) It's being rammed through, without a hearing, in a very nontransparent process, and it will be passed by attaching it to the popular concealed carry reciprocity bill which already has enough votes to pass on its own.
(4) 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.
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.

In my opinion, #5 is the biggest problem. The bill encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can't obtain a firearm. When President Obama couldn't get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.

Does the NICS background check system have problems? Yes, it results in tens of thousands of unjustified denials of gun purchases every year. But like many bills in Congress, the fix-NICS doesn't live up to its name — it will likely do the opposite. It throws millions of dollars at a faulty program and it will result in more law-abiding citizens being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

If we continue to give the executive branch more money and encouragement to add names to the list of people prohibited from buying a firearm (without a day in court) and if the gun banners achieve their goal of universal background checks, one day, a single person elected to the office of President will be able to achieve universal gun prohibition.

House leadership should immediately de-couple the fix-NICS legislation from the concealed carry reciprocity legislation. People hate it when Washington combines bills like our leadership plans to do this week.

A few have speculated that the House is combining the bills to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate. I have some news for them: Senators Feinstein and Schumer aren't going to vote for reciprocity even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database. If someone is naïve enough to think that's going to work, and they're willing to accept fix-NICS to get reciprocity, then they should ask the Senate to go first with the combined bill.

Here's a dangerous scenario that's more likely to play out: The House uses the popularity of reciprocity (HR 38 ) to sneak fix-NICS through, while the Senate passes fix-NICS only. The Senate and the House meet at conference with their respective bills, with the result being fix-NICS emerges from conference without reciprocity. Fix-NICS comes back to the House and passes because all of the Democrats will vote for it (as they just did in Judiciary Committee) and many Republicans will vote for it. Because Republicans already voted for it once as part of the reciprocity deal that never came to pass, they won't have a solid footing for opposing fix-NICS as a standalone bill. Then we'll end up with fix-NICS, which is basically an expansion of the Brady Bill, without reciprocity.

If our House leadership insists on bringing the flawed fix-NICS bill to the floor, they shouldn't play games. We should vote separately on HR 38 , the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, and HR 4477, the fix-NICS bill. And we should be given enough time to amend the fix-NICS bill, because it needs to be fixed, if not axed.
 
And so the Washington World soap opera takes another twist assuring that no resolution to the melodrama will ever be achieved.

So with Control of the House being in the hands of the party that is pushing HR 38 why did they allow the attachment from members of the Senate? It is not making sense, but of course Congress often makes no sense.
 
If we continue to give the executive branch more money and encouragement to add names to the list of people prohibited from buying a firearm (without a day in court) and if the gun banners achieve their goal of universal background checks, one day, a single person elected to the office of President will be able to achieve universal gun prohibition.
With just a little bit of editing, the same argument can be applied to National Reciprocity :

If we continue to give the executive branch more money and encouragement to control reciprocity and if the gun banners achieve their goal of reciprocity, one day, a single person elected to the office of President will be able to achieve universal gun prohibition through regulation at the national level.
I think it will be a grave mistake to put all of our eggs into one basket. (i.e. the Federal Government) When (and historically, they will) the liberals retake control of Congress and the Presidency we could end up with a Schumer or Feinstien in charge and this would make it ridiculously easy for them to achieve their goals.
 
Received text and email short time ago from NRA that the Reciprocity Bill will be voted on in the House today, 12/6.
 
The House approved the bill, H.R.38, 231-198, largely along party lines.

So much for states' rights as far as the House is concerned.
 
The House approved the bill, H.R.38, 231-198, largely along party lines.

So much for states' rights as far as the House is concerned.

The states can pass any laws they want...as long as they don't violate the constitution. I think the 2nd Amendment is all we need for a license to carry, but that isn't the case. HR38 basically forces every state (especially NJ, CA, NY, etc) to follow the Constitution.

I'm covered by LEOSA but I support HR38 100%. There are a lot of dangerous people in the world. Law abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves and their loved ones accordingly. The criminals will carry weapons regardless what the law says.
 
True, there are dangerous people in the world, and we don't need politicians drawing more dangerous people into allegedly "sanctuary societies" like moths drawn to a flame. Not all, but too many of the people drawn to sanctuary societies can be significant threats to the law-abiding members of society. Sadly, it is a rare occasion that a cop is on scene exactly when you need one. National reciprocity can make the law-abiding and criminals equals, much like Samuel Colt made all men equal!
 
Fix Nics is sponsored by Chuck U Shumer and Diane Feinstein and it is now attached to HR 38. This can't possibly be good for gun owners.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top