US Senate Bill S.1691 - Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act

[FNG19]

The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act was introduced on 10/12/2011 by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Begich (D-AK). According to the press release on the bill, it "allows for the interstate sale of firearms and removes several antiquated and unnecessary restrictions imposed on interstate firearms transactions."

As of the time of this posting, the text of the bill is not available. For details, check out the press release above. Thus far, our Senators have not signed onto it, but it only just was entered yesterday. Hopefully, they'll sign onto it!

[mauser]

The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act was introduced on 10/12/2011 by Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Begich (D-AK). According to the press release on the bill, it "allows for the interstate sale of firearms and removes several antiquated and unnecessary restrictions imposed on interstate firearms transactions."

As of the time of this posting, the text of the bill is not available. For details, check out the press release above. Thus far, our Senators have not signed onto it, but it only just was entered yesterday. Hopefully, they'll sign onto it!

Edit to my original post:

I was thinking of H.R. 822, the “National Reciprocity Act,”, the one in the OP is H.R 58, "The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act".

2 different animals, sorry about that.

[FromMyColdDeadHands]

It all sounds fine and dandy but I'd be wary, anything related in any way to constitutional liberties (pro or con) at the national level should be suspect, if they can interfere they can do so both negatively and positively. We shouldn't need gun laws, reality is we have them. Just make sure you know what your getting into before you support something, the FOPA in 1986 was similar. After the fact we found out there was a few negative items that are still affecting us to this date, 25 years later!!!

[mauser]

It all sounds fine and dandy but I'd be wary, anything related in any way to constitutional liberties (pro or con) at the national level should be suspect, if they can interfere they can do so both negatively and positively. We shouldn't need gun laws, reality is we have them. Just make sure you know what your getting into before you support something, the FOPA in 1986 was similar. After the fact we found out there was a few negative items that are still affecting us to this date, 25 years later!!!

That's similar to what I had typed out when I was thinking the OP meant H.R. 822. The more the Feds get involved with any regulations the more they can change it for the worse. If we get the "privilege" of nationwide uniformity we may also get stuck with regulations that are similar to the most restrictive states instead of what we currently have for ourselves right here.
I can't help but think the BATFE is going to be even more involved and that's what makes me have second thoughts about how "good" it may really be.

[gfanikf]

That's similar to what I had typed out when I was thinking the OP meant H.R. 822. The more the Feds get involved with any regulations the more they can change it for the worse. If we get the "privilege" of nationwide uniformity we may also get stuck with regulations that are similar to the most restrictive states instead of what we currently have for ourselves right here.
I can't help but think the BATFE is going to be even more involved and that's what makes me have second thoughts about how "good" it may really be.

That's true, but you could also say the same thing about State's preempting cities and townships. Keep in mind the State of PA via preemption could actually introduce restrictions one day. It cuts both ways.

[Azzy]

Hmmm... I would be more comfortable with a bill that repeals another set of rules, which it sounds like this could do. We just have to watch the actual wording of the law.

If its over 1 page, then you know what, its probably not good for anyone but those looking for power and ways to exploit it.

[mauser]

That's true, but you could also say the same thing about State's preempting cities and townships. Keep in mind the State of PA via preemption could actually introduce restrictions one day. It cuts both ways.

Yes, I know. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying that I'm afraid it might open the door to more restrictions. (Not saying it will, but it might).
Is this another one of those that has to pass before we can know what's really in it?

[PocketProtector]

The left will not vote for it unless it opens a door for total restriction. Gun control is one of their sacraments.

[gfanikf]

Yes, I know. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm saying that I'm afraid it might open the door to more restrictions. (Not saying it will, but it might).
Is this another one of those that has to pass before we can know what's really in it?

I know it's just a trait of being a lawyer and natural disposed to looking at the other side and trying to argue it, that or being an ass, or perhaps both.

The left will not vote for it unless it opens a door for total restriction. Gun control is one of their sacraments.

You tack on Full Faith and Credit for Gay Marriages to the NRA bill and you will. It would bring together the oddest match of interests since the Projcect IP Act got the AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce to pledge their support. I think the later is one of the Seven Seals of the Apocalypse. lol

That said I know a poster on another board who owns a couple of guns and is really into the whole Occupy nonsense and actually at one of them.

You'd also be surprised that their are a fair amount of liberals who aren't pro-gun control and actually own weapons (and not OWS people either, just regular liberals).

[FNG19]

You'd also be surprised that their are a fair amount of liberals who aren't pro-gun control and actually own weapons (and not OWS people either, just regular liberals).

Some of them are even members of this forum!