House passes national concealed carry bill to Senate!

The House has passed the National Concealed Reciprocity bill. It will now move to the Senate, where it faces conservative majority support, along with minor resistance from Senate Dems and anti-gun groups. It is important all gun owners/gun rights advocates do whatever we can to support the firearms community, and get this and other excellent legislation through the Senate.

"The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed 231-198 in the GOP-controlled House, with six Democrats voting in support." -From the source
This is a true bi-partisan bill, minus those who voted automatic-no without even considering the bill due to their anti-gun bias. Sick of personal bias and opinion interfering with government and liberty.

I recently posted about this bill, which will allow residents in all 50 states to carry a firearm in accordance with their home state's laws. Constitutional carry state residents will not be required to obtain a permit, but it is unclear whether you will need an ID card or some other instrument of verification.

This will also allow residents living in anti-gun states to obtain a permit from another state (like Florida, which issues permits to non-residents) in order to qualify under the program. This bill (soon to be law, hopefully) circumvents gun-controllers in states like CA, NJ, CT, NY, MD, etc.

www.foxnews.com...

It is important for gun rights advocates to call their congressional Representatives (and thank them) and especially Senators, and donate to the NRA/renew your membership or contribute in any way possible to the gun community at large

With this President and congress, we will restore gun rights in this country in accordance with the vision and intention of the founding fathers.

Unrelated, but great read... Good people with guns saving lives...

Even if you just send an email or post something on a message board, now is the time for pro Second amendment advocates to stand up and be counted!

a reply to: JBurns

Great news! Let's see if the Senate can go 2 for 2 and get this no brainer through! Thanks for the update.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: JBurns

Great news! Let's see if the Senate can go 2 for 2 and get this no brainer through! Thanks for the update.

Fingers are crossed BlueJacket!

I am going to mail a letter to my Rep and thank them for passing this common sense legislation. They have contributed to the cause of equal freedoms for all Americans, regardless of what state they happen to live in.

I also joined NRA for 5 years, only cost $100. They are by far the largest second amendment advocacy organization in the world, and are the go-to group for anti-gun group criticisms. The gun lobby enterprise is on the receiving end of never-ending stream of insulting rhetoric from the anti-gun clubs.(which is mostly quite laughable). They are clearly doing something right

a reply to: JBurns

Yes sir, I re-up every 5 years myself. I considered lifetime, but if by any small chance, they lose my confidence in the future...(not likely) I want the opportunity to pull my support.
Again highly unlikely.

a reply to: BlueJacket

That was exactly my reasoning, just in case they suddenly change direction, priorities or leadership

[1]Especially given their stance taken against bump stocks lately, which are basically useless as a defensive implement. Although I still do not support their regulation, it didn't really hurt the NRA in my eyes for precisely this reason: they are useless in defensive situations

Overall, the NRA is a huge net positive for the firearm community and they currently have my full support

[1]In this case, the NRA wasn't agreeing to regulate some weapon or accessory that would detract from my overall safety (like the NFA/GCA does). Instead, they supported the regulation of a toy that is useful only for wasting ammo and assuring only 5% of rounds hit their intended target. To me at least, I can shoot my AR-15 fast enough in SA while maintaining good accuracy. Once I drop in the RDIAS, it is Magpul-60 or BETA-C time. I can just see the gun crying dollar bills, with each fistful of brass puked out of its ejector port

a reply to: JBurns

I only have 1 problem with this idea. It will allow a resident of Kentucky who is under an order of protection because he stalked, assaulted, and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend to get a non-resident Florida CCW permit and then carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky, where he is not eligible. Florida allows non-residents to get a permit by mail and restricts the prohibition against permits for people under orders of protections to only those involving spouses. So this bill is going to get a lot of girlfriends, boyfriends, eses and stalking victims dead. But I guess the feds can't stand the thought of states making laws for their own citizens.

a reply to: JBurns

Yeah, totally agree about the bumpstock. Useless, plastic...I have a buddy that bought one, can't hit a target from 25yds with that Pos. Meanwhile, my wife (or me) tears up the black at 50ft with a subcompact.

Folks with bumpstock just like hearing noise and buying ammo imo. Be cheaper to pick up a string of firecrackers.

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: JBurns

I only have 1 problem with this idea. It will allow a resident of Kentucky who is under an order of protection because he stalked, assaulted, and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend to get a non-resident Florida CCW permit and then carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky, where he is not eligible. Florida allows non-residents to get a permit by mail and restricts the prohibition against permits for people under orders of protections to only those involving spouses. So this bill is going to get a lot of girlfriends, boyfriends, eses and stalking victims dead. But I guess the feds can't stand the thought of states making laws for their own citizens.

And how much hassle is all of that?

To go to those lengths to murder someone is the most asinine murder plot I've ever heard of.

a reply to: F4guy

Well you still have to go through an FBI background Check...we all do. I'm not sure your statement is accurate.

For once the Fed does something right...

Something that it was actually designed and created to do...

In fact, according to the Declaration of Independence the sole purpose of establishing government is to defend and preserve our unalienable god given rights.

Bravo.

a reply to: F4guy


F4, is this in reference to a conviction for one of those offenses or simply accusations?

Because in most states, obtaining an Emergency/Temporary Protection Order does not confer due process on the defendant nor is it proof of guilt.

Just my opinion, but it is unacceptable to restrict the rights of someone who hasn't been afforded due process - because domestic violence POs (not temp/emergency, though)/convictions already make you a prohibited person under federal law.

EDIT: after reading the actual relevant language, I believe I am accurate in my assessment of when someone becomes firearms disabled.

The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

In defense of my statement, it does appear the person becomes prohibited after conviction for domestic violence, or during an active DVPO. It would appear that the "temporary" or "emergency" order does not (correct me if I misinterpreted this) result in disability under 18 USC 921 (33) (B) (is this the proper notation? I have no idea. Just scroll down )

(33)
(A)Except as provided in subparagraph (C),[2] the term “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” means an offense that—
(i)is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal [3] law; and
(ii)has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.
(B)
(i)A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter, unless—
(I)the person was represented by counsel in the case, or knowingly and intelligently waived the right to counsel in the case; and
(II)in the case of a prosecution for an offense described in this paragraph for which a person was entitled to a jury trial in the jurisdiction in which the case was tried, either
(aa)the case was tried by a jury, or
(bb)the person knowingly and intelligently waived the right to have the case tried by a jury, by guilty plea or otherwise.
(ii)A person shall not be considered to have been convicted of such an offense for purposes of this chapter if the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or is an offense for which the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) unless the pardon, expungement, or restoration of civil rights expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms.

So it would appear that they did not err in their omission, because a person subject to the Emergency/Temporary order has not been afforded due process, including representation by an attorney before a court of law.

Not to minimize true victims of DV (there are lots of them), but it is also not unheard of for feuding spouses to the use the legal system as a way to exact revenge against the other. There is simply too much risk in limiting a Constitutional right without providing appropriate due process.

Respectfully,

JB

originally posted by: F4guy
a reply to: JBurns

I only have 1 problem with this idea. It will allow a resident of Kentucky who is under an order of protection because he stalked, assaulted, and threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend to get a non-resident Florida CCW permit and then carry a concealed weapon in Kentucky, where he is not eligible. Florida allows non-residents to get a permit by mail and restricts the prohibition against permits for people under orders of protections to only those involving spouses. So this bill is going to get a lot of girlfriends, boyfriends, eses and stalking victims dead. But I guess the feds can't stand the thought of states making laws for their own citizens.

As someone who lived in Bowling Green for a good while, I really don't agree. If some idiot wants to pop a cap in his ex, do you really think it's gonna make a difference whether or not he can get a carry permit? Especially since Kentucky is a free open carry state.

What anti-gun folks just can't seem to understand is the fact that if someone is nuts enough to kill another human-being, it really doesn't matter what state, federal, OR local laws are in place, because (and please correct me if I'm wrong) murder is ALREADY illegal EVERYWHERE, IN ALL 50 states.

As hard as it is for some folks to believe, there are actually multitudes of criminals who actually carry concealed handguns who don't have, and could NEVER, EVER get a carry permit.

It's the same reason that gun-free zones are nothing but a silly, cruel joke, that, unfortunately, is only being played on LAW-abiding citizens!! Because LAW-abiding citizens are the only ones that actually don't, or WON''T carry in a gun-free zone.

Criminals don't CARE about following laws. That's why they're CALLED "Criminals"!

a reply to: F4guy
This is an entirely hypothetical scenario, just an example of what would be possible under any such law

For example, a husband and wife are divorcing, because the husband has been abusing her. She has not brought the abuse to the attention of LE (which is also not uncommon). The husband lies to the police and files a false report, and is granted a temporary protection order.

Under TPO/EPO restrictions, the wife is now unable to obtain a defensive firearm to protect herself from her disgruntled and abusive husband.

There are many ways such prohibitions could be abused by an abuser, to prevent the victim from obtaining defensive tools.

a reply to: JBurns

There is a lot more to this than people are discussing.

This is attached to other legislation that actually expands the demands of states and other agencies have to follow in order to comply with the federal background check database requirements.

It also requires firearm owners that are going to carry in another state to become knowledgeable of each states firearm laws, or they could face consequences, regardless of them carrying legally or not.

So it's not a complete victory by any means. It does appear that you gain some freedoms of where you can carry, but it still expands government oversight and responsibility for the firearm owner.

I already wrote both my senators regarding this Bill. I didn't hear back from Portman (R) and Brown (D) politely told me to go screw myself.

Writing your Congressmen is useless because their votes are already bought and paid for by their individual political parties.

The days when they gave a crap what the constituents think are over.

P.S. I still write them all the time because I am stubborn.

a reply to: introvert

They need to expand the background checks, I have no problem with that. Private sales should be subject to background check, as long as non-FFL can submit the check. If this bill does in fact accomplish this, then I say great

It is also very sensible and reasonable to be aware and informed of the laws for each state you carry in. I couldn't agree with this more either.

It is not a complete victory, I agree. I do think it does a lot for personal freedom and protection, provided it is exercised responsibility in accordance with this law and local laws. It may expand certain components of federal oversight, but I think the freedom gained certainly outweighs those negatives.

I'm mainly thinking of people living in high risk areas or routinely engaging in dangerous occupations that are currently burdened by unjust de jure carry laws.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
a reply to: F4guy

Well you still have to go through an FBI background Check...we all do. I'm not sure your statement is accurate.

It only checks for felony convictions, not restraining orders, which are civil matters, unless violated.

a reply to: JBurns

It's nice to see that after more than a century and a half, conservatives are finally dropping the pretense of giving a # about states' rights. Amirite?

Next step, do away with state legislatures.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: JBurns

It's nice to see that after more than a century and a half, conservatives are finally dropping the pretense of giving a # about states' rights. Amirite?

Next step, do away with state legislatures.

It was deemed racist for conservatives to even talk about states rights. According to mind-readers its code for segregation and slavery.

Dog Whistle Politics - States Rights

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: introvert

They need to expand the background checks, I have no problem with that. Private sales should be subject to background check, as long as non-FFL can submit the check. If this bill does in fact accomplish this, then I say great

It is also very sensible and reasonable to be aware and informed of the laws for each state you carry in. I couldn't agree with this more either.

It is not a complete victory, I agree. I do think it does a lot for personal freedom and protection, provided it is exercised responsibility in accordance with this law and local laws. It may expand certain components of federal oversight, but I think the freedom gained certainly outweighs those negatives.

I'm mainly thinking of people living in high risk areas or routinely engaging in dangerous occupations that are currently burdened by unjust de jure carry laws.

Fair enough. But I would just caution you that this is not a big win for the 2nd amendment, as some would have you think.

Not only does this expand the responsibilities and potential needed resources of state and local entities, and the firearms owners themselves (which is a good thing), it expands the oversight of the federal government and may potentially cause issues with law enforcement as they try to deal with these new issues.

Not to mention that is may come up against some constitutional flak, in regards to states rights to enact and enforce their own firearm regulations.

All in all, this seems to be a very empty, or bittersweet, piece of legislation.