HR 38 passes one hurdle

[Rastoff]

Reciprocity is a good thing but states need to work it out, not congress. I don't see anything good about this bill.

I was "worked out" by the original 13 states not long after the nation's creation. The states have been screwing it up ever since.

However, I think I see your point. So, just how would the states work it out? What would the process be?

 

[LostintheOzone]

I was "worked out" by the original 13 states not long after the nation's creation. The states have been screwing it up ever since.

However, I think I see your point. So, just how would the states work it out? What would the process be?

The states do it with driver licenses. I think the hang up is that not all states are shall issue yet. We are getting very close to that however as there are only a few who oppose it. DC just lost an appeal to federal court to remain may issue. The big fish is CA. I think when CA gets shall issue it won't be practical to continue this charade of individual state permits. Too much enforcement for no practical gain.

The way it would work is a state would just pass a law to allow a permit holder of any another state to carry in their state. Some states have already made it possible to carry concealed without a permit.

 

[deadin]

If this passes I will be curious to see which way they will jump.
Will the law require that everybody take classes ($) and testing ($$) to some national standard thereby creating a new nationwide industry of "Trainers" or will they put all existing "Trainers" out of work by dropping the requirements to WA standards which only calls for a clean record (i.e. NICS check)? If training/testing is required will they set a fixed nationwide price or will they let the market decide? Better yet will the gvmt pick up the tab? (Fat Chance....)

Somehow I don't see any of the "control freak" States giving up anything. After all, they know what is best for us common folk... (Where's the barf emoji when you need it??)

 

[Rastoff]

The states do it with driver licenses.

(My snip for brevity.) True and states also do it with carry licenses. Each state has their own ideas on who should be allowed to carry in their state.

The difference between driver's and carry licenses is monetary. Allowing drivers to drive in any state increases revenue to every state. States actually want you to be able to easily drive there. There is zero revenue for a state to gain by allowing everyone to carry. Therefore, there was no need for the fed to step in when it comes to driver's licenses. Because there's no revenue generated, the states have to be forced to allow it by the fed because they won't do it on their own.

 

[Walkingwolf]

The bill is probably toast, I don't think the votes are there in the senate anymore.

 

[GaryS]

The bill is probably toast, I don't think the votes are there in the senate anymore.

I don't know that there ever were.

I wonder if the federal government could force the states to recognize each others permits under the Interstate Commerce Clause?

The federal government in general has taken an expansive view of the ICC and since guns and ammunition are not made in all 50 states and there are federal regulations on what can and can't be shipped across state lines, a case can be made that the federal government has an interest in seeing that people can move freely with their firearms.

Sounds farfetched, but some of the things that the government has regulated using the ICC are pretty odd.

ICC lights on trucks are there because trucks move across state lines. They have to be on vehicles that never cross state lines. Not to mention the ICC under ride bar.

 

[Rastoff]

The bill is probably toast, I don't think the votes are there in the senate anymore.

This bill was never going to get passed. If it were, they would have done it already.

The republicans had the votes since the 2016 election and have done nothing. By allowing this to drag through the system, they have now lost the majority they once had. Yes, they still have 51, but I don't think that will be enough as some will not vote party line.

I'll be more than happy to eat that crow if I'm wrong here. I said it when we first saw this and I'm saying it again, it won't pass.

 

[Ozark Marine]

Missouri has a no licence needed to carry, open or concealed.
It's a blessing to live in a state where a U.S. citizen doesn't need permission from a bureaucrat to defend family, friends, self and property.
We still have CCW permits for those who travel to states that require them.
So I say keep the feds out of it.
It's a state issue.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Missouri has a no licence needed to carry, open or concealed.
It's a blessing to live in a state where a U.S. citizen doesn't need permission from a bureaucrat to defend family, friends, self and property.
We still have CCW permits for those who travel to states that require them.
So I say keep the feds out of it.
It's a state issue.

I agree with that, I think it is a bad move. But that is not the reason they will not pass it. They will not pass because of the lack of trust they have with the people.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Okay. Then who should get the money that's currently used to fund NICS?

And how would that money be used to "keep violent felons in prison longer"?

The violent felons are already in the slammer, right? They're serving a sentence handed down by a judge. More money isn't going to make their sentences longer.

For future violent felons, more money isn't going to make a judge hand down a stronger sentence. Even with the most violent of crimes, there are sentencing guidelines in place by law. Throwing money at some other agency isn't going to keep one single guy in prison longer.

Felons are let out of prison every day because of overcrowding, and lack of prison space. To increase the space NEEDS money spent on laws that do not work.

Here is just one of the many true stories of criminals back on the streets due to lack of space.

Jail Overcrowding Forces Release of Felon Facing New Charges

 

[Walkingwolf]

You are oversimplifying the problem. Dude was released on a summons because he was likely to appear in court. Not convicted, just charged. He's not a criminal until he's convicted . . .

He was still released due to overcrowding. It is only one story of the very, very many. It is simple, criminals cannot commit crimes against the free public while behind bars. The criminal acts are limited to what they can get by with in jail.

Pie in the sky schemes do not work, they never have with criminals. Criminals break laws, that is why they are criminals.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Again another case 6,000 released, article in 2015.

About 6,000 US inmates to be released early - BBC News

 

[steelslaver]

If locking people worked to deter or stop crime the US would have a very low crime rate. But, actually although we lock up a higher percentage of our population for longer periods than any other country we still have the highest crime rate. More prisons and more time isn't going to change that.

But, this thread is about the bill for reciprocal carry. Not crime, prison etc