April 23, 2013, 01:28 PM | #26 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
You do recognize that I consider "better UBG bill" to be problematic right? IMHO, it's a little like saying "better influenza." I don't support federally-mandated reciprocity, either.
Also, I'm having trouble with your link. I don't think there are ~2700 bills in the Senate right now, and depending on which number I exclude (assuming that you mistyped something), I either wind up with a fisheries bill, or something about Fillipino veterans.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 23, 2013, 01:33 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2013, 02:08 PM | #28 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
And try this one... http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...3gC2JJD:e8472: If that still doesn't work, it's Senate Amendment 719 y Senator Corwyn, or the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2013 Thomas makes it difficult to get a non-temp link at times. |
|
April 23, 2013, 02:18 PM | #29 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Well, that solves the link, but the bill still has problems:
First, while I'm certain that Senator Cornyn is well-meaning, and I'm pretty sure that the NRA supports federally-mandated reciprocity, I do not. As noted above, if such were to pass, I'd give it about 36 hours between passage and someone screaming "we've GOT to have STANDARDS!" No, thank you. Second, it wouldn't apply to anyone travelling to Illinois, nor would it allow Illinois residents to carry. Take a look at my version, edited only for brevity and emphasis: Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 23, 2013, 02:36 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2013, 02:39 PM | #31 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Do you really expect someone like Senator Lautenberg to allow folks from, say, Vermont to CC in NJ?
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 23, 2013, 02:48 PM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
I don't expect he'd have much say in it if passed.
|
April 23, 2013, 02:57 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I don't think a bill that imposes reciprocity on the issuing state's terms gets passed by the Senate.
|
April 23, 2013, 02:59 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00100
It only missed by three. It was the amendment closest to passing- evn more so than any of the "control" amendments. In a (D) controlled Senate. |
April 23, 2013, 03:09 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2013, 03:10 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
April 23, 2013, 03:11 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
I guess what I'm saying is - if you created a clean bill which provided for federally-enforced reciprocity of CHL permits, and didn't allow states to opt out, and which required the "host" state to honor any and all other states' CHL's without equivocation or burdensome requirements - I see no chance of that passing on its own.
|
April 23, 2013, 03:15 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
True, but that wasn't what was proposed. What was proposed was closer to "If you think it's OK for your state's citizens, it's good enough for all the other citizens"
|
April 23, 2013, 06:58 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,321
|
Here are some compromises I like:
Repeal the GOPA of 1984 for Fund a study to see what grade levels would be best to engage our youth about the utility and value of guns in their lives. Repeal all background checks for Fund a report which looks into how and why criminals do not get caught by the background check systems and why those wasteful systems should be replaced with prosecuting crime. National unlicensed carry. . .aka 2nd amendment carry for Funding gun ownership and gun training for our working class families. Repeal NFA for studying how to really keep at risk people from turning to crime. Eliminating the ATF and turning that cost into a tax rebate annually to all tax payers as a reminder of how bad the ATF was. |
April 23, 2013, 10:37 PM | #40 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Re: Gun law "compromises"
While it's nice to float wish lists of stuff we want, there are two salient things to remember. The first is that they WILL NOT give us anything we want if they can avoid it. The second is that any concessions they might make will be repealed, or at least legislated into utter uselessness down the road.
If it looks like they've got something with a chance at passage, things like nationwide reciprocity or alterations to the NFA will be appended as poison pills to kill it, with little expectation of success or benefit. |
April 24, 2013, 08:35 AM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
April 24, 2013, 09:33 AM | #42 |
Member in memoriam
Join Date: April 9, 2009
Location: Blue River Wisconsin, in
Posts: 3,144
|
1934 – National Firearms Act
1968 – The Gun Control Act 1986 – Firearms Owners Protection Act 1993 – Brady Handguns Violence Act 1994 – Assault Weapons Ban 1995 – Gun Free School Zones Act NO MORE COMPROMISING
__________________
Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern will, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. --Daniel Webster-- |
April 24, 2013, 10:26 AM | #43 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
In the true spirit of compromise, where both sides give up what they really want in exchange for something closer to what the other side wants, I would propose a bill that...
1)Eliminates/nullifies all existing federal level firearms laws. 2)Specifies that the 2A is incorporated against the states so the states have 2 options: 1)Shall Issue Permits based solely on reinstituted NICS check. 2) No permits at all, i.e. Constitutional Carry. 3)NICS check for all firearms transfers between "unknown" persons. Unknown persons defined in a manner similar to the current "prohibited persons" standard, such as seller and buyer have "reasonable history of having known one another, such as but not limited to co-workers, neighbors, relationships between children, etc." All family members out to 3rd cousins, through genetics and marriage, are "known" persons. 4)Prohibited persons are those who have been convicted of a violent crime of some "X" minimum standard and within "X" time period for minor violent crimes, like "mutual combat", i.e. a couple guys got in a fist fight. "Coming to blows" when you're 21 and drunk should not be a life-time prohibition. No other person can be prohibited for any non-violent crime. I might have more, or modify that list, but it's a start.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
April 24, 2013, 11:54 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 25, 2013
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Posts: 3,084
|
Yes, Brian, while maybe that is wistful thinking, that is the kind of true compromise I was talking about. Not the supposed compromises listed by Old Grump or similar
|
April 25, 2013, 02:22 AM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 29, 2008
Location: Oregon
Posts: 2,346
|
Gun law "compromises"
The point of the wish lists is to say that is the only direction in which we will accept compromises. No more compromises from where we are toward more restrictions. Compromise only from where we are back toward pre-1934.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|