National Reciprocity is Dead

As I have stated many time before the federal government involved with this law will turn it to a total disaster and already the wonderful reps are piling on the riders and the last thing we as gun owners need is to find out what was in the bill after it passes and becomes law. REMEMBER "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT" as the now minority house leader stated about OBAMA CARE

NYC doesn't NEED a law against concealed carry, they already have a law against possession/carry without a NYC permit. And, NY CITY does NOT recognize permits issued by NY STATE!!!
Click to expand...
I believe the Sullivan Law went into effect somewhere around the early 1900's because of all the gang wars at the time
 
Don P said:
As I have stated many time before the federal government involved with this law will turn it to a total disaster and already the wonderful reps are piling on the riders and the last thing we as gun owners need is to find out what was in the bill after it passes and becomes law. REMEMBER "WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT" as the now minority house leader stated about OBAMA CARE
Click to expand...
That's a concern, but that has always been a concern, with any bill. It's our own fault, for having allowed the Congress to continually attach unrelated amendments to bills. Sometimes they are intended to sneak through things that otherwise wouldn't pass, sometimes they are "poison pill" amendments that are offered for the sole intent of killing the original bill.

Anything that deserves to be a law deserves to be discussed and voted on in its own ride, not hidden in an amendment to an unrelated bill. That goes far beyond the national reciprocity bill, and we should ALL be raising a constant stink about the parctice with our elected "representatives."

Remember, "You get the government you deserve." If we're not pushing them to fix the way they do business, it can be argued that we deserve the result.
 
I believe the Sullivan Law went into effect somewhere around the early 1900's because of all the gang wars at the time
Click to expand...

That's what they claimed, at the time...

And the NFA was passed to "stop the gangsters and bootleggers with machine guns", conveniently ignoring the fact that the law was passed in 1934, several years AFTER the repeal of Prohibition (which took the majority of the money out of bootlegging and mobsters hands).

And the GCA 68 was to stop cheap mail order guns used to assassinate Presidents and candidates...

And what was the 94 AWB supposed to stop?... mass shootings? or people enjoying themselves with semi auto military look alike firearms?

(I know which one I'd pick...:rolleyes:)

"WE HAVE TO PASS THE BILL SO WE KNOW WHATS IN IT"
Click to expand...

In my opinion, if there was ever a statement that should disqualify someone from serving in legislative office (at any level) this is it.
 
Except that those famous words are only a partial quote of what she actually said, and you aren't even quoting her correctly to begin with. Context is very important, but I've learned that it matters little on the internet. I'm no big fan of NP, but she wasn't saying what the internet echo chamber says she was. The quote isn't even correct.
 
I'm amazed that after all the federal gun laws we already have, starting with the 1934 NFA, there's people who think somehow that passing a reciprocity bill allows the feds to do what they've already been doing for 83 years. The way I see it is if you stop the feds from expanding gun rights the only direction the federal laws can go is ever more restrictive.
 
And just WHO do you think the Feds will listen to when it comes to "expanding our rights"?
Will they listen to the folks who live where carry everywhere by any means is allowed and force the NY, CA, NJ et all to allow that? Or do you think they just might listen to those anti folks and allow reciprocity with so many restrictions, you might as well live in NYC?

If it sounds to good to be true (especially coming from the mouth of a politician), is most certainly IS........
 
@FITASC - what restrictions in the current bill concern you?

If it doesn't pass what prevents Congress from passing restrictions in the future? What stops them, for example, from prohibiting carry in a religious institution? Any place that sells alcohol? Magazine capacity restrictions?

They can do any and all those things without national reciprocity. And whatever else they have the votes to pass and a President willing to sign.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
If all they want to do is "fix" NICS, not drastically expand it to require universal background checks, I don't think many of us have a problem with that. I do happen to think that NICS, 4473s, and the entire carry permit/license scheme are massive violations of the 2A, but that's what we have. As long as we have NICS, it might as well function properly.

So if we can get national reciprocity (with teeth!) in exchange for allowing them to fix NICS, I can abide by that. I think both parties want to fix NICS anyway, after that Texas church massacre, so by all means let's use that as a bargaining chip for reciprocity.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyl4IGGsqVQ#action=share

https://www.facebook.com/RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905

Anybody have any more info on this besides Massey?
 
Last edited:
Armed Chicagoan said:
If it doesn't pass what prevents Congress from passing restrictions in the future? What stops them, for example, from prohibiting carry in a religious institution? Any place that sells alcohol? Magazine capacity restrictions?

They can do any and all those things without national reciprocity. And whatever else they have the votes to pass and a President willing to sign.
Click to expand...

The commerce clause of the COTUS. The Federal government does not possess general police powers. It isn't good citation practice to quote the syllabus, but that's what I've done below.

To uphold the Government's contention that § 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States. Pp. 552-568.
Click to expand...

Syllabus to US v. Lopez, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/549/ .
 
What is the quote??
Click to expand...

What she actually said was, "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

She was speaking to a group twelve days before the Senate's version of the bill was voted on in the House. Just prior to making this often misquoted statement, she talked to the group about controversies surrounding the bill. Exactly what the final bill would look like hadn't been completely settled yet, and she, in essence, told the group that WE (meaning Congress) would have to complete the process and pass the bill so YOU (meaning the group she was speaking to) would have a better understanding of what was in it.

As often happens with quotes and partial quotes, the part she was quoted on was changed slightly, and the rest of her sentence was left out to make it seem that she was saying one thing when she was actually saying something else. This is one of the things I absolutely hate about the internet. It's too easy to take a comment out of context to push an agenda. It happens on all sides of the spectrum, and only serves to further divide us as a country. I've seen it happen entirely too much since the advent of the internet, and until we learn how to vet the veracity of what we read on the web, the internet culture of half truths and outright lies will ultimately lead to our downfall as a nation.
 
steve4102, Congressman Massey's description and explanation of the reciprocity bill coupled with fix-ncis shows how involving the Feds is a double-edged sword that will probably end up doing more harm than good. The idea that this will be a victory for us is unlikely at best.

The only way gun rights will be expanded at a national level is if SCOTUS rules the 2A supports those rights. They don't seem to have any interest in doing so at this time. I'm not optimistic.

I wish I had the confidence Aquila Blanca and others have that the 2A prohibits any regulation of our right to keep and bear arms. While "shall not be infringed" seems unequivocal, "well regulated" not so much. I've spent a lot of time reading opinions going back to the founders, and I don't think there was any more agreement on the 2A when the Bill of Rights was ratified than today.

I live in Illinois, a restrictive state for gun rights by most definitions. The reason I can legally carry a gun was not the enlightened state or federal legislatures, but the Heller ruling of the US Supreme Court. Passing additional laws, that may or may not be Constitutional seems like a waste of time and money.
 
I simply love it when someone quotes Lopez.

Why? Because almost immediately after that decision, the Congress piled inference upon inference to thier interstate commerce clause authority and passed a new law that did almost exactly the same thing. "Almost", because they added a couple of exceptions.

The "new" § 922(q) has been upheld ever since.

SonOfScubaDiver, argue against internet memes all you want. However, first get the facts straight... It was the MSM that first misquoted Ms. Pelosi. A huge deal was made of this in the press of the day.

Did people on the internet take it up? Most assuredly we did. But we were not the first. Hard to stop a meme when it becomes viral.
 
SonOfScubaDiver said:
What she actually said was, "But we have to pass the bill so that YOU can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

She was speaking to a group twelve days before the Senate's version of the bill was voted on in the House. Just prior to making this often misquoted statement, she talked to the group about controversies surrounding the bill. Exactly what the final bill would look like hadn't been completely settled yet, and she, in essence, told the group that WE (meaning Congress) would have to complete the process and pass the bill so YOU (meaning the group she was speaking to) would have a better understanding of what was in it.
Click to expand...
And even if that's the case, it's a load of hogwash to claim that a bill must be passed in order for any particular group to find out what's in it or to understand it. The contents of law ought not to be treated like a Christmas present, only to be discovered by surprise.
 
Especially when Obama had promised that all laws would be up public review before being voted on (which never happened)
 
Al Norris said:
I simply love it when someone quotes Lopez.

Why? Because almost immediately after that decision, the Congress piled inference upon inference to thier interstate commerce clause authority and passed a new law that did almost exactly the same thing. "Almost", because they added a couple of exceptions.

The "new" § 922(q) has been upheld ever since.
Click to expand...

I am glad that you love it. Lopez is still accurate dicta on that point and struck a law that on its face was an exercise of power Congress lacked. The case wasn't overturned, but legislated around. It forced Congress to create a different finding to make the Act effective. Congressional fact finding that resembles fiction more than fact isn't new, but that Congress was required to engage in the pretense shows that the commerce clause, even in its modern and attenuated form, is still an obstacle, even if it isn't insurmountable.

Al Norris said:
SonOfScubaDiver, argue against internet memes all you want. However, first get the facts straight... It was the MSM that first misquoted Ms. Pelosi. A huge deal was made of this in the press of the day.
Click to expand...

More to the point, the meme isn't deceptive. The controversy to which Pelosi made reference was the controversy over what was going to be in the bill in order to get the bare majority of dems to vote for it. The last change I recall was for Bart Stupak, though that may not have been reflected in the text of the actual act, but a handshake deal with BHO.

The meme and Pelosi's statement have the same meaning; one can't know the result of the political bartering process until the process has concluded. It wasn't going to conclude until it passed.
 
Last edited:
^^^ I have no further information but, if Massey's information is correct, then I do have a problem.

(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.
Click to expand...
Administrative agencies cannot adjudicate your rights, because "adjudicate" means a trial and a judge. The VA and the Social Security Administration have already played that game, and people were rightly upset. An administrative determination is NOT "adjudication."
 
zukiphile said:
The commerce clause of the COTUS. The Federal government does not possess general police powers. It isn't good citation practice to quote the syllabus, but that's what I've done below.
Click to expand...
If you're going to make that claim then a reciprocity bill won't suddenly give them the power to pass concealed carry restrictions.
 
And what about all of the riders being attached? The Feds have NEVER done anything right when it comes to the types of bills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top