HR 38 passes one hurdle

[Rastoff]

The House version would let a person who cannot get a permit from a restrictive "May Issue" state like New Jersey get a permit from a shall issue state like Florida and carry in their own state

Not the way I see it. You underlined this in your quote, "...a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State...", but you didn't highlight this part, "...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..."

Now, I'm no legal expert, but that sounds like you have to have a license in your state of residence to carry in your state of residence.

 

[richardw]

Not the way I see it. You underlined this in your quote, "...a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State...", but you didn't highlight this part, "...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..."

Now, I'm no legal expert, but that sounds like you have to have a license in your state of residence to carry in your state of residence.

Thank you for posting that info. I listened to the House debate today and heard so many Dems misrepresent the actual language of the Bill. The Bill is well thought out and does abridge States' rights. It simply allows people,to exercise their right with reasonable limitations.

 

[richardw]

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.

Maybe I am odd man out here but I don't see Fix NICS as an impediment to gun ownership by those legally permitted to own guns. I listened to the Senate hearing on NICS today. The testimony from government officials was compelling to the extent that they reported how many people ineligible to but a gun are not reported into the system by the military, state mental institutions, and state judicial systems. It has to be corrected and NICS is the first step in that direction.

We don't need another unreported and convicted domestic abuser buying a gun and shooting up a church or an unreported mentally deranged person from shooting up a school. Etc, etc.

I acknowledge that some laws can be overly rwstictive, but I also know that that some can be be beneficial to the public interest.

 

[Rastoff]

I've been debating this all day with people. I sincerely hope I'm wrong because that will open the world of CCW up to many here in CA.

There is still a huge possibility of a 10th amendment challenge.

 

[richardw]

I've been debating this all day with people. I sincerely hope I'm wrong because that will open the world of CCW up to many here in CA.

There is still a huge possibility of a 10th amendment challenge.

You can be sure if National Reciprocity is enacted into law it will be challenged in Court. That could be a battle for yeaes. Also keep in mind that the passing such legislation in the Senate is unlikely unless eight Dems support it and thus make the required 60 votes to bring it to the Senate Floor for a vote. That is not impossible, but it is unlikely.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

FixNics?

Pull the plug.

 

[GaryS]

I expect that CA will be the first state to file suit, followed closely by NY, MA, NJ, MD, IL, DC, and maybe SC.

One point of contention will be that restrictive states like CA, NY, MA, NJ, MD, IL, DC, and maybe SC will not want to recognize non resident permits issued to their residents whom they have decided don't deserve a permission slip.

I put SC on the list as they have a very restrictive view of reciprocity and will not recognize any non resident licenses. Further a non resident must own property in SC in order to qualify for a SC non resident permit.

I've been debating this all day with people. I sincerely hope I'm wrong because that will open the world of CCW up to many here in CA.

There is still a huge possibility of a 10th amendment challenge.

 

[ladder13]

Here's the Bill


http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20171204/BILLS-115HR38-RCP115-45.xml

 

[richardw]

I've been debating this all day with people. I sincerely hope I'm wrong because that will open the world of CCW up to many here in CA.

There is still a huge possibility of a 10th amendment challenge.

There certainly could be a 10A challenge, but it seems to me to be nearly impossible to argue that the Federal Government usurped the rights of states. The Feds are the custodians of the Constitution and as such 2A falls under it jurisdiction. If it did not the NRA probably would have challenged Federal Firearms Laws enacted in the past with a jurisdictional argument.

Of course creative constitutional lawyers would love the chance to try it. This will be interesting to watch as it unfolds.

 

[tattooo]

fingers crossed

 

[Rastoff]

...the required 60 votes...

Why do they need 60 votes?

The Feds are the custodians of the Constitution and as such 2A falls under it jurisdiction. If it did not the NRA probably would have challenged Federal Firearms Laws enacted in the past with a jurisdictional argument.

That's the problem here. The various state governments, along with the feds, have been ignoring the constitution for decades. By the letter, every gun law in the US is unconstitutional.

 

[GaryS]

That is a rule that the Senate enacted in the distant pass. It's been eroded a bit in recent years, but for this sort of legislation it is still in place.

Why do they need 60 votes?

 

[Walkingwolf]

FixNics?

Pull the plug.

It is ineffective, costs money that could be used to keep violent felons in prison longer. Gun control does not work, never has, never will. WHY? Criminals break laws, that is why they are criminals.

 

[lrrifleman]

My state's US Law Shield lawyer is chiming in on this. He likes the benefit of "fix NICS" being added. It seems that by adding "fix NICS", the addition changes the voting rules, and 60 votes are no longer required, just a simple majority.

Living in NJ, I am concerned about whether I will be able to exercise my non-resident permits in NJ. The US Law Shield lawyer insists that we WILL be able to exercise non-resident permits in NJ. The only way it looks like NJ would be able to avoid recognizing permits held by out of staters will be to abolish the concept of state issued concealed carry permits, which is technically unconstitutional and violates previous Supreme Court rulings.

 

[bushmaster1313]

My state's US Law Shield lawyer is chiming in on this. He likes the benefit of "fix NICS" being added. It seems that by adding "fix NICS", the addition changes the voting rules, and 60 votes are no longer required, just a simple majority.

Living in NJ, I am concerned about whether I will be able to exercise my non-resident permits in NJ. The US Law Shield lawyer insists that we WILL be able to exercise non-resident permits in NJ. The only way it looks like NJ would be able to avoid recognizing permits held by out of staters will be to abolish the concept of state issued concealed carry permits, which is technically unconstitutional and violates previous Supreme Court rulings.

I do not know about the Fix NICS not needing 60 votes in the Senate.

Also, the Senate version would not help us here in NJ as it only allows you to use your carry permit in a state that you do not live in.

Only the House version would let you use any permit in any state

 

[Muss Muggins]

I do not know about the Fix NICS not needing 60 votes in the Senate.

Also, the Senate version would not help us here in NJ as it only allows you to use your carry permit in a state that you do not live in.

Only the House version would let you use any permit in any state

It will potentially need 60 votes to come to a vote, as the 60 are needed to overcome a filibuster. Eliminating the filibuster is the "nuclear option" that the Senate used to bring Supreme Court nominees to a vote. It doesn't get used for ordinary legislation, hence the 60 votes needed. If, of course, somebody filibusters . . .

 

[Watchdog]

It is ineffective, costs money that could be used to keep violent felons in prison longer.

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.

 

[Rastoff]

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.

Hmmm, you may be on to something here. Bribing judges to hand out stronger sentences....

 

[LostintheOzone]

FixNics?

Pull the plug.

I'm all for that. Just another giant abyss that tax dollars get sucked into by the millions.

I'm of the opinion that NICS will eventually collapse under it's on weight because of the FBI's inability to collect the records it needs to do a timely and complete back ground check. Everyday it falls farther behind, delays and denies people it shouldn't. 625 million dollars can't fix it. Let it die. Give that money to the states to run their own systems.

Some POC states already have their own system that queries the FBI data and uses their own system for records that don't make it to the FBI, which is a bunch.

The situation in NV is an example of a states (POC) operation and the FBI/NICS operation. Even the FBI says NICS is broken.

The FBI illustrates the perfect point about the NICS systems deficiencies: ​

"State and local authorities serving as POCs are likely to have readier access to more detailed information for processing background checks than the FBI, thus resulting in fewer system misses of disqualified persons and enhancing system responsiveness for non-disqualified persons. The POCs have access to more current criminal history record and more data sources (particularly regarding noncriminal disqualifiers such as mental health commitments) from their own state than does the FBI, and have a better understanding of their own state laws and disqualifying factors. Specifically, the POC for Nevada checks additional databases to include state protection orders, state warrants, state driver's licenses, parole and probation, and SCOPE (which is Clark County, Las Vegas area records). Also, most of Nevada's protection orders are not in the National Crime Information Center File, which is important to note since only the POC has access to these protections orders and if the FBI were processing background checks on private party sales of firearms for Nevada, these protection orders would not be part of the NICS check.

"The state of Nevada can provide a more comprehensive NICS check that is accomplished when a POC access state-held databases that are not available to the FBI. The Nevada DPS is also in a better position for understanding and applying state laws."

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

 

[REM 3200]

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

I totally agree with you.