Concealed Carry Reciprocity This Week! Call Now!

[vinnyg101]

How about that,and abolish the switchblade laws while we are at it.

True. The term switchblade is like the idiot political term 'asault rifie.'

[Gunsnwater]

no, i believe they've always done whatever they wanted. but the fight still would have been easier. they have had much more time to anchor down and turn more of the people against america.
maybe it's a case of envy or hindsight being 20-20. it's moot anyway. i'm trying to come up with a list of best dems to contact.

Nobody was organized to resist this shit. It hadn't been done before. A lot of people weren't using guns everyday by the 30s and didn't think the average person needed to carry everyday nor own full auto, $200 was prohibitive back then.

Realize that they went after handguns but couldn't get them because too many of the legislators back then wouldn't go for it. It's why we are left with short barrel shotguns and rifles, that part wasn't removed along with the handgun part.

The glorification of the outlaws and the tommy gun in the news paper, radio and movies just as they do mass shootings today, pumped the public up to crys of do something.

People that will trade the idea of safety for their unappreciated liberty shall have neither.

[glass3222]

This is my impression from reading it as well. As it stands it's nothing that would prohibit anymore people than now. I think the fear is it could be bastardized in the future to include more people ie: The VA removing vet's rights for letting someone be there power of attorney. The sensational claims made by some, like speeding tickets will be prohibiting, aren't written in there. I don't think it's a good idea or anything that will be a plus for us, but it's not as bad as some make it out to be, unless a future administration finds a way to use it to harm us.

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of why people (GOA and others) have an issue with the "Fix NICS" is that it is intentionally vague and potentially requires additional people to report who is classified as an "unlawful" firearms owner. Most believe that you show have to be criminally convicted to loose your rights. Below are 2 lines copied from HR4477. As you can see it requires reporting from government departments and agencies. This could open the door to have agencies submit names of people who have not be given "due process" and arbitrarily have their rights removed.

“(I) the total number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;"

"The head of each Federal department or agency shall update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K). The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code."

Now these are both already in NICS, but HR4477 also gives money for complying with these requirements. The GOA believes that an "anti-gun" congress or president could withhold moneys because agencies are not providing enough names, or to persuade agencies like the VA to give a list of everyone with PTSD, or another agencies to give all names of people with ADD/ADHD, again without ever being convicted and with no due process.

[Aggies Coach]

I firmly belive this bill will die in the Senate. Even with the NICS “fix”, Dems aren’t gonna give it to us.

[BF750]

^^^^ I agree with Aggie

[dkf]

At this point I think I would rather both die. Not worth the risk IMO,

[Hodgie]

At this point I think I would rather both die. Not worth the risk IMO,

Agreed

[Bang]

The Washington Post, June 22, 2016 article states that the police commit crimes 1.7% per 100,000 officers. The Concealed Carriers with permits or licenses commit 0.00003 percent per 100,000 concealed carriers.
This shows that the concealed carriers are more law abiding than the police. AND

Found this on crime prevention research center. For Texas:
The police commits 703/ 683,396 full time officers, yearly rate, and for misdemeanors or felonies, 118/ 683,396 for Firearm violations.
For the concealed carriers: 108/ 1 million for permit holders for misdemeanors of felonies and 24/1million for permit holders for firearms violations

Only problem with such stats....it doesn't show the crimes that went undetected and/or individuals who didn't get caught.

[vinnyg101]

When is HR 38 up for a vote in the Senate?

[R L Suehr]

I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of why people (GOA and others) have an issue with the "Fix NICS" is that it is intentionally vague and potentially requires additional people to report who is classified as an "unlawful" firearms owner. Most believe that you show have to be criminally convicted to loose your rights. Below are 2 lines copied from HR4477. As you can see it requires reporting from government departments and agencies. This could open the door to have agencies submit names of people who have not be given "due process" and arbitrarily have their rights removed.

“(I) the total number of records of the Federal department or agency demonstrating that a person falls within one of the categories described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;"

"The head of each Federal department or agency shall update the plan biennially, to the extent necessary, based on the most recent biennial assessment under subparagraph (K). The records shall be limited to those of an individual described in subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code."

Now these are both already in NICS, but HR4477 also gives money for complying with these requirements. The GOA believes that an "anti-gun" congress or president could withhold moneys because agencies are not providing enough names, or to persuade agencies like the VA to give a list of everyone with PTSD, or another agencies to give all names of people with ADD/ADHD, again without ever being convicted and with no due process.

I see the danger in it, but to characterize it as banning people who get traffic and parking tickets automatically is a little disingenuous. I'm not saying I agree with any of it either. I'm just pointing out that some of the fears, while founded, would take additional steps then just this.