Is House GOP Leadership Attaching Obama-Style Gun Control to Nat'l Reciprocity?

[gundawg]

Are they trying to sabotage the National Reciprocity bill with a poison pill? Or are they actually trying to enact Obama's unconstitutional executive actions stripping people of their Second Amendment rights without due process into black-letter law?

In my opinion, it's still unconstitutional, a violation of due process. But WHO is behind this attack on our rights?

Rep. Thomas Massie Sounds Warning: House Leaders to Merge Obama-Style Gun Control with National Reciprocity


Rep. Thomas Massie Sounds Warning: House Leaders to Merge Obama-Style Gun Control with National Reciprocity - Breitbart

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hmmm... I don't like the idea of a database of who "can or can't" have a firearm, but I'm not so sure that a national database of who can't have a firearm isn't a good thing. What am I missing in this thinking?

 

[Streck-Fu]

They attached HR4477 (NICS Fix) to HR38. It is now ****.

 

[jamil]

Hmmm... I don't like the idea of a database of who "can or can't" have a firearm, but I'm not so sure that a national database of who can't have a firearm isn't a good thing. What am I missing in this thinking?

I think the only way a person should be denied a firearm is for a court to have ordered it. Then you have due process. And I don’t have a problem with having those people in a database.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Poison pill, anyone?

Damned if we do, damned if we dont. But I'll go for "Dont" for the long game, Alex.

 

[Lwright]

Poison pill, will probably be DOA.

 

[jamil]

Poison pill, will probably be DOA.

That’s probably the plan anyway.

 

[gundawg]

Hmmm... I don't like the idea of a database of who "can or can't" have a firearm, but I'm not so sure that a national database of who can't have a firearm isn't a good thing. What am I missing in this thinking?

What you're missing is the lack of due process before people get put on the list. They're talking about using administrative processes and statuses to deny people their Second Amendment rights.

For example, having a Social Security or VA benefits guardian appointed to receive your benefits doesn't mean you're mentally incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to own or buy a gun.

Only people who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated an incompetent in a proper court should be disenfranchised.

 

[Lex Concord]

What you're missing is the lack of due process before people get put on the list. They're talking about using administrative processes and statuses to deny people their Second Amendment rights.

For example, having a Social Security or VA benefits guardian appointed to receive your benefits doesn't mean you're mentally incompetent and shouldn't be allowed to own or buy a gun.

Only people who have been convicted of a felony or adjudicated an incompetent in a proper court should be disenfranchised.

I'll go a step further and say (regarding felony convictions) only people still incarcerated should be disenfranchised. If you can't be trusted with the basic human right of self defense, you shouldn't be on the loose.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'll go a step further and say (regarding felony convictions) only people still incarcerated should be disenfranchised. If you can't be trusted with the basic human right of self defense, you shouldn't be on the loose.

Maybe after a set period of time, but given the following I'd say it's a bad idea to legally arm recently released felon:

Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:

• Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
• Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

 

[jamil]

So what percentage of all felons never commit a violent felony after they get out? In other words, how many people are denied their right to protect themselves with firearms, who wouldn’t end up using it to harm innocent people?

 

[rob63]

I'll go a step further and say (regarding felony convictions) only people still incarcerated should be disenfranchised. If you can't be trusted with the basic human right of self defense, you shouldn't be on the loose.

Maybe after a set period of time, but given the following I'd say it's a bad idea to legally arm recently released felon:

Bureau of Justice Statistics studies have found high rates of recidivism among released prisoners. One study tracked 404,638 prisoners in 30 states after their release from prison in 2005.[1] The researchers found that:

• Within three years of release, about two-thirds (67.8 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Within five years of release, about three-quarters (76.6 percent) of released prisoners were rearrested.
• Of those prisoners who were rearrested, more than half (56.7 percent) were arrested by the end of the first year.
• Property offenders were the most likely to be rearrested, with 82.1 percent of released property offenders arrested for a new crime compared with 76.9 percent of drug offenders, 73.6 percent of public order offenders and 71.3 percent of violent offenders.

Your stats seem to confirm his point rather than refute it. I.e., they shouldn't be out in the first place.

 

[edporch]

All things considered, the more I think about the federal government getting involved in national reciprocity, the more nervous it makes me.
It won't be done properly with a Bill that's basically one sentence that simply says carry permits will be recognized in all states under the authority of Article IV Section 1 of the US Constitution.

It WILL have all kinds of things added to it to get votes from left leaning and anti-gun states that we WILL live to regret in the future.
Not to mention what will be added to it in future years.
THIS IS A TRAP FOLKS.

"Article IV Section 1Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

 

[Leadeye]

Reminds me of the Hughs amendment, many years ago, and still with us today.

 

[jedi]

Reminds me of the Hughs amendment, many years ago, and still with us today.

This... they told regan to sign it we will fix it later...
Later never came

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Im still not completely sold on this bill (reciprocity) in the first place.

 

[sht4brnz]

The fbi has a list of all the felons.
what else is needed?

 

[gundawg]

I share others concerns with the whole idea of a national reciprocity law, based largely on my faith in the capacity of our "servants" in DC to screw up any situation and make it worse.

I personally believe the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry a firearm and supersedes any state authority to effectively ban it, but I would much rather see that point be established by a Supreme Court ruling than have the fools and tools on Capitol Hill make a mess of it.

Lastly, regarding felons losing the right to own firearms, I have no problem with it. I would also have no problem with a procedure that would allow a convicted felon, in some instances anyway, to petition a court for the restoration of Second Amendment rights.

 

[K_W]

The fbi has a list of all the felons.
what else is needed?

Texas church shooter wasn't on the list but should have been... that's what gave them the excuse to make this bill.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

FWIW, from Dana Loesch:

There seems to be some misinformation out there regarding H.R. 4477 (the Fix NICS bill) and it is misleading some well-intentioned folks.

Some are confusing it with Obama’s attempt at administratively creating new categories of prohibited possessors. It is NOT the same. The names to be added to the NCIC (National Crime Information Center -- what NICS runs through) are EXISTING convicted prohibited possessors under current law. There is already a mandate requiring reporting these convictions but unfortunately, too few states report all convictions (i.e. Sutherland Springs). 38 states report fewer than 80% of their convictions. FIX NICS simply incentives states to comply with the existing mandate and transmit records of those who are already, under current law, prohibited possessors. You can debate incentivizing agencies to do their jobs, but to reiterate, it is NOT putting "potential" names nor any names beyond convicted criminals and those adjudicated mentally unfit (due process!) to NCIC, period.

Once more: Fix NICS **does not** create a new category of restriction.

Fix NICS had an in-depth, public markup session and has enough votes to pass on its own.

Cornyn is leading the Senate push on this and he introduced it first.

I have always been suspicious of those who do not want NICS to work (Feinstein, Schumer, Pelosi) because it seems that they prefer Clinton's alternative from the 90s.