HR 38

[Totem Polar]

My feels are fully in alignment with Jody and David: deep down in my gut, I know that there is some sort of screwing brewing, because, there always is with big admin.

But, that acknowledged, we have been fighting for national reciprocity for a long time. This might be one of those times to just take "yes" for an answer, otherwise, what have we been fighting for? Watching WA and CO go the way of CA, to be followed by a gentrified MT, and creep to other states? In addition to the obvious, gaining CCW is one small step back towards a united states, in opposition to lots of recent little steps away over the last several decades.

[joshs]

My feels are fully in alignment with Jody and David: deep down in my gut, I know that there is some sort of screwing brewing, because, there always is with big admin.

I've never understood how having some form of federal concealed carry reciprocity makes it easier for a future anti-gun Congress to enact gun control. LEOSA and the interstate transportation provision of FOPA haven't been used to create some broad scheme regarding carry by active and retired LEOs or firearm transportation.

[RoyGBiv]

Some folks seem to be getting cold feet as their wedding day approaches.

How about this.....?
After 7 years of reciprocity and no related "blood in the streets", we'll pass National Constitutional Carry.

A guy can dream.

[hufnagel]

I share some of the black cloud concerns as others, but they don't appear to have any basis in fact based on these proposed resolutions.

I'm looking at it like this: I'll take the (major! for me!) step forward of national reciprocity which will allow people in a defacto ban state to now carry (again, me!), as a means to increase and accelerate the numbers of concealed carry persons out there. If we take the opportunity to press on getting sheep into the flocks of gun ownership and carry, then we increase the base that will be willing to fight/vote in such ways as to protect their to them new found right/power, even if it is just 3%.

[Hambo]

I've never understood how having some form of federal concealed carry reciprocity makes it easier for a future anti-gun Congress to enact gun control. LEOSA and the interstate transportation provision of FOPA haven't been used to create some broad scheme regarding carry by active and retired LEOs or firearm transportation.

Exactly. It's force feeding reciprocity to the states, not the federal government taking over the issuance of permits.

[luckyman]

My feels are fully in alignment with Jody and David: deep down in my gut, I know that there is some sort of screwing brewing, because, there always is with big admin.

But, that acknowledged, we have been fighting for national reciprocity for a long time. This might be one of those times to just take "yes" for an answer, otherwise, what have we been fighting for? Watching WA and CO go the way of CA, to be followed by a gentrified MT, and creep to other states? In addition to the obvious, gaining CCW is one small step back towards a united states, in opposition to lots of recent little steps away over the last several decades.

As a California resident, it is really hard for me to see this in anything other than a positive light.

Exactly. It's force feeding reciprocity to the states, not the federal government taking over the issuance of permits.

IDK, I think people would have been screaming about State's rights etc if the proposal was to take even more fed control.

Seriously I understand the concerns, but short of a Supreme Court ruling, what did people realistically expect progress to look like?
I'm mainly scared to death that some last minute changes will make it in that f@?$s everything up.

[JodyH]

Exactly. It's force feeding reciprocity to the states, not the federal government taking over the issuance of permits.

"Force feeding the states" = unfunded mandate.
As soon as it turns into a funded mandate, the guy who pays the musicians gets to choose the tune...

[joshs]

"Force feeding the states" = unfunded mandate.
As soon as it turns into a funded mandate, the guy who pays the musicians gets to choose the tune...

It's not an unfunded mandate because it doesn't require any expenditure by the states. There isn't any funding tied to CCR; any funds in the bill will be for implementation/incentives of Fix NICS.

[JodyH]

Some folks seem to be getting cold feet as their wedding day approaches.

I'd rather the Feds lead the way by REMOVING federal laws that infringe on the 2nd amendment instead of making yet another law...
That's what progress looks like.

[wrmettler]

One last go around, and then I’ll leave it alone. I just do not share everyone’s good will toward this bill, particularly when diehard gun control Dems are supporting it.

18 USC 922 1 (a) requires anyone who has been “adjudicated a mental defective” as a person who cannot own a firearm. Nowhere in federal statute are these words defined. They are terms of art. What does “adjudicated” mean? What is a “mental defective”?

The ATF has attempted to define those words in CFR 187.11(a). It states that pretty much any court or administrative decision determines that a person is a danger to himself or others, or cannot manage his/her own affairs, i.e. balance a check book, then according to the ATF, that person can’t own a gun.

The importance is that CRF 187.11 exists, and attempts to define that statute.

4477 requires agencies to report mental defective individuals who are not authorized to own firearms. This law requires the agency to make this determination, i.e. whether or not an authorized person. The law does not define the agencies’ standard to be used in its determination. The AG merely places the agencies determination in the database.

So, the question is: Does the VA, SSA, or even the CDC share the AFT’s definition of mental defective or adjudication.

RoyGBiv found an excellent article from the SSA regarding its intent in response to the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007. This article shows exactly what the SSA will do, and I believe the SSA’s intent significantly expands on the requirements of either 18 USC 922 or CFR 187.11. That may be moot for the 2007 act, but this new act, 4477 gives even more authority to the agencies. What’s to say that the SSA won’t be even more expansive in determining who is an excluded person.

Just saying that once you throw any responsibility to a federal agency, what agency will take a political position and pursue it relentlessly. And, this will affect gun ownership.