Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: National Reciprocity Under Attack - VCDL warning

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    Posted by Philip Van Cleave at

    http://www.packing.org/community/law.../?thread=15158

    From VCDL's VA-ALERT system:
    Note to non-Virginia packing members - item 1 is important to you, too. Please contact your Senators and get their names added to the 19 who currently are sponsoring S.3275!


    1. ACTION ITEM: National Recognition is under attack and needs YOUR help!
    2. Cavalier Rifle and Pistol Club saved by gun owner activism!

    ************************************************** ***
    1. ACTION ITEM: National Recognition is under attack and needs YOUR help!
    ************************************************** ***

    I am still hearing from gun owners who are confused by some information coming from a group in Pennsylvania and another in Virginia that implies that Senator Allen's National Recognition bill is a 'Trojan horse' that could be amended down the road to restrict CHPs.

    Yes, that's always a possibility -- any law can be modified and twisted in the future to our detriment. That was even a concern back when Virginia's Shall Issue law moving through the legislature. But is that a reason to attempt to torpedo a good bill? I don't think so.

    Any restrictions put on later would only affect you carrying in states that don't have their own reciprocity/recognition with either Virginia or one of the other permits that you might have.

    So worst case if the National Reciprocity law is modified to require, say, some Draconian minimum level of training or whatever, the permits from states that don't comply would simply not be honored in non-reciprocal/non-recognition states, exactly like the situation is currently.

    So there isn't much of a downside to the bill, but there is quite an upside.

    THE REAL PROBLEM is that some groups are asking their members to contact Senator Allen to ask him to DROP his National Recognition bill!!! I don't know how many gun-owners are going to be mislead and possibly endanger the bill, but we CAN'T take a chance.

    If that bill gets dropped because of wrong-minded pressure, it will be a LONG TIME before we can get something like this put in again!

    IF YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO CARRY IN ALL 50 STATES, then I NEED ALL OF YOU to do two things to keep this thing on track:

    1. Contact Senator Allen (call him AND send him an email), thank him for putting S.3275 in and ask him to push to get it passed before this year's election.

    2. Contact Senator Warner (call him AND send him an email), ask him to become a sponsor of S.3275 and ask him to push to get it passed as soon as possible.

    --

    Here is the contact information and suggested emails:

    Senator George Allen:

    Phone: (202) 224-4024

    Web email:

    http://tinyurl.com/s67f9

    For the topic, select "Government." Suggested copy-and-paste message:

    Dear Senator Allen,

    As a gun-owner I would like to thank you for introducing S.3275!

    Please push this important bill forward so that it gets to the President's desk before the upcoming election. My right to self-defense should not stop at Virginia's borders!

    Please let me know what you're going to do.

    --

    Senator John Warner:

    Phone (202) 224-2023

    Web email:

    http://www.senate.gov/~warner/contact/contactme.cfm

    Select a subject of "Governmental Affairs." Suggested copy-and-paste message:

    Dear Senator Warner,

    Please cosponsor Senator George Allen's bill, S.3275, which would allow Virginia concealed handgun permit holders to lawfully carry in all 50 states! My right to self-defense should not end at Virginia's borders.

    Your help pushing this bill so that it gets passed as soon as possible would be appreciated.

    Please let me know what you are going to do on this matter.

    --

    OK, VCDL - A RARE OPPORTUNITY IS IN FRONT OF US AND OUR VOICES NEED TO BE THE LOUDEST - LET'S ROLL!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    You can go to the PDO thread to see why this is a really bad idea. I will note that this bill only deals with concealed carry and would not impact open carry (whether or not a permit is required).

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I think we should have a discussion as to why this is a good or bad idea. Look, as far as Open Carriers are concerned, this will not help us one iota. Perhaps an amendment can be done to make an out of state permit recognized for open carry if the state law allows it (such as licensed open carry states or states where licensing is required to open carry in a vehicle).

    There is a funny thing if that occurs: Open carry would be legal in New Jersey with an out of state permit, same with Maryland and Hawaii and Rhode Island. They'll make 'em throw a fit, eh?

    Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution allows Congress to do this. The 10th amendment doesn't apply here in this particular case.

    Folks, the people who really need this law are the folks in New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts who barely have any rights as it is, or travel there. Boo freaking hoo, I can't open carry in New York. Big deal. I want at least concealed carry available to me in all fifty states. If I really want to open carry in Oregon (which I can with my CHL), in Minnesota, I will get licenses to do so.

    All this does is give an additional layer of protection on top of the existing reciprocity/recognition statutes that already exist at the state level.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    I am not sure it does much for anyone in the restrictive states.

    Say this law is passed. You fly to NYC with your pistol in luggage. You are not carrying it pn the plane. You are still committing a felony by having it in your luggage until the point where you can strap it on.

    Say you drive to NYC with your pistol strapped on. You go to your hotel room and decide to shower. Pistol is no longer concealed. You are subject to instant felony charges.


    This bill only helps you out in states that have poor/no reciprocity or don't accept NR permits.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    I doubt it. In New York, a pistol license is a license to "have" AND carry concealed in public. You see, a premise license allows you to open carry in your own home or business. If you possess a carry license you can also carry it concealed outside of your home, but you're not required to inside of your home. New York must recognize it for what it is, their equivalent to a subsection F license.

    Similar questions have come up about trying to check in luggage due to the interstate transport law (18USC926A), and if you want to get technical, HR218 as a law doesn't protect it. Saying that you'll get charged for taking a shower means also that if you happen to use said firearm in self defense, you'll get Bernard Goetz' (charged with illegal concealed carry because your firearm was unconcealed when you shot the guy).

    As we've seem the US-DOJ came down hard on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who were arresting regular citizens on felony handgun possession charges when they lived in CT and had to fly out of NYC. The states frustrating the intent of the statute will not hold.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    I think we should have a discussion as to why this is a good or bad idea.

    Ok let’s.

    Look, as far as Open Carriers are concerned, this will not help us one iota. Perhaps an amendment can be done to make an out of state permit recognized for open carry if the state law allows it (such as licensed open carry states or states where licensing is required to open carry in a vehicle).

    Getting greedy aren’t we? You are counting those chickens….

    There is a funny thing if that occurs: Open carry would be legal in New Jersey with an out of state permit, same with Maryland and Hawaii and Rhode Island. They'll make 'em throw a fit, eh?

    No, it would make them go to court where an injunction would immediately be issued blocking the law.

    Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution allows Congress to do this.

    I don’t think so. Can you point to ANY support for this proposition. Hint: do not say the phrase “driver’s license” because you would be wrong.

    The 10th amendment doesn't apply here in this particular case.

    Ok, Learned Hand explain why.

    Folks, the people who really need this law are the folks in New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts who barely have any rights as it is, or travel there.

    In essence, you want the legislature of say, Florida, to determine the qualifications for concealed carry in New Jersey. Do you really think this will survive?

    Boo freaking hoo, I can't open carry in New York. Big deal. I want at least concealed carry available to me in all fifty states. If I really want to open carry in Oregon (which I can with my CHL), in Minnesota, I will get licenses to do so.

    Then start working on the state legislatures to achieve what you want and stop trying to short circuit the political process Remember the AWB? Heard of the Lautenberg amendment? And you want the federal government MORE involved? I’ll retire to Bedlam.

    All this does is give an additional layer of protection on top of the existing reciprocity/recognition statutes that already exist at the state level.

    No, it gives Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein a back door into regulating concealed carry.

    Similar questions have come up about trying to check in luggage due to the interstate transport law (18USC926A), and if you want to get technical, HR218 as a law doesn't protect it.

    I have no idea what you are trying to say. For the umpteenth time, 18 USC 926A has NOTHING to do with checking in a firearm at the airport. Period.

    As we've seem the US-DOJ came down hard on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey who were arresting regular citizens on felony handgun possession charges when they lived in CT and had to fly out of NYC. The states frustrating the intent of the statute will not hold.

    DOJ has come down hard? When? Where? Other than a meaningless PR letter of no consequence, I cannot see where the feds have gotten involved. Why? It ain’t a federal issue. At least not yet. If you try to take a handgun out of NYC without the proper permit, you will still be arrested. At that point, you can whip out a copy of 18 USC 926A and the DOJ letter. After the local cops get done laughing, you will be handcuffed and taken for a ride.



  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    Apjonas,

    Getting greedy aren’t we? You are counting those chickens….

    Hey, it's a good idea.

    No, it would make them go to court where an injunction would immediately be issued blocking the law.

    Yeah, right. Just like they did with HR218, just like they did with 18USC926A (several states threatened lawsuit over it and they never did it, big suprise), just like they did with armored car carriers (who can and do open carry in all fifty states).

    No, it gives Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein a back door into regulating concealed carry..

    Yeah right. Here's a little hint: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY REGULATES CARRY. Let's see, federal buildings, federal courthouses, National Park Service land, military bases, within a "school zone", am I forgetting anything here?

    Let me put it to you another way:

    Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Frank Lautenberg do not need HR4547/S3275 to do that for them. They already believe that the federal government can ban carry nationwide if they get 50+1 in the Senate, 217+1 in the House. This bill would not give them an "open door" to it, because they already believe the door is open by a majority vote in Congress.

    If you try to take a handgun out of NYC without the proper permit, you will still be arrested. At that point, you can whip out a copy of 18 USC 926A and the DOJ letter. After the local cops get done laughing, you will be handcuffed and taken for a ride.

    You don't have any proof whatsoever to this claim, at least not since the DOJ letter actually came out. Even if they did arrest me, I'd have a field day retiring on the Port Authority's dime within a few years after, and they still wouldn't actually charge me with anything.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    I don't get people!!!



    This bill is good news. Some gun owners are their own worst enemy.



    Lets not get the federal government involved?

    Yeah, that's a bad idea. In fact they should repeal the FOPA of 1986. It's a federal intrusion onto state's rights. If New York wants to put you in jail for driving thru the state with an unloaded pistol, then, it's their right to. If you don't like it then, lobby the New York legislature to change their law(SARCAM).

    First off, states do not have rights. Sorry, but some people need to read the constitution.

    Secondly, the second amendment originally only applied to open carry. When the second amendment was ratified, many states and localitieshad strict licensing procedures for concealed carry while open carry was unregulated.



    Third, for those of us who have lobbied in anti-gun states (I have). You will not get them to change their laws, just as you will not get Texas and Florida to go "may-issue". These states will not change their laws. New York and New Jersey will not change in our lifetime. The U.K. Secretary of State will start to issue handgun and machinegun certificates to the average British subject before NY and NJ change.



    Short of a SCOTUS ruling that repeals most gun laws, this law is your best shot.



    Then again, why should I care, I can already carry in New York City, in fact, I can carry in NYC, go to JFK can carry on a plane to Hawaii, and then carry there.



    I would like to see Senator Allen's bill pass, but it definately wont if pro-RKBA keep giving him this state's rights speech that is nonsense and unsupported constitutionally.



    The anti-gun elite already carry on their US Marshal ID's or other federal authorizations. State and local LEOs have a decent form of national CCW under HR218. Don't you think it's time everyone else gets at least a half way decent national CCW reciprocity law.



    Like I said, unless SCOTUS rules open carry is a fundamental right and personal firearm ownership is a fundamental right, this is the best change all average gun owners have. Take it or leave it.



    Note: If SCOTUS did rule open carry is a fundamental right, do you know how fast every state would have shall-issue CCW and complete recognition of all CCW's. Even New York and New Jersey would do it in a second.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Post imported post

    Lonnie Wilson wrote:
    Apjonas,

    Getting greedy aren’t we? You are counting those chickens….

    Hey, it's a good idea.
    Well, you seem to think so.

    No, it would make them go to court where an injunction would immediately be issued blocking the law.

    Yeah, right. Just like they did with HR218, just like they did with 18USC926A (several states threatened lawsuit over it and they never did it, big suprise), just like they did with armored car carriers (who can and do open carry in all fifty states).
    States have always had special rules for LEO's and occupationally related carry. Thus the federal intrusion was not as much of a concern in these areas. You would find that an attempt to extend this policy to regular citizens would be met with a much greater resistance. If you care to know, I think LEOSA is equally unconstitutional as this proposed bill. The armored car personnel is a little more hazy since there is a legitimate interstate commerce component. The feds don't even pretend that is the case in LEOSA or the Allen bill. If this bill became law and was challenged it would probably take LEOSA down with it.

    No, it gives Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein a back door into regulating concealed carry..

    Yeah right. Here's a little hint: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY REGULATES CARRY. Let's see, federal buildings, federal courthouses, National Park Service land, military bases, within a "school zone", am I forgetting anything here?
    Well, it is not surprising or problematic that the feds regulate carry on federal property, this says nothing about the general power to regulate it everywhere else. The school zones thing is a crock as Lopez showed. The replacement law is just as objectionable. Whether or not it withstands a challenge depends on lot on what SCOTUS looks like at the time. (See, I'm consistent in my view.) The feds have general law enforcement power on military installations, does that mean it's ok to have them issue speeding tickets on Main Street or prosecute you for burning leaves in your backyard? I think not. Despite your shouting, you have not provided any new or interesting information.

    Let me put it to you another way:

    Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, and Frank Lautenberg do not need HR4547/S3275 to do that for them. They already believe that the federal government can ban carry nationwide if they get 50+1 in the Senate, 217+1 in the House. This bill would not give them an "open door" to it, because they already believe the door is open by a majority vote in Congress.
    Actually because of Senate rules, they would need 60 votes. But let's assume that such a law is passed. Would you just accept it or would you protest - as I would - that such is beyond the power of Congress? You would be in a weak position because you would have already conceded that power. Don't you remember Esau in the Bible?

    Even if they did arrest me, I'd have a field day retiring on the Port Authority's dime within a few years after, and they still wouldn't actually charge me with anything.
    Umm. I hate to tell you but people are being charged and I have yet to see anybody win a dime (literally) in such a case. You want "fifty state carry" so much that you are willing to throw away a fundamental tenet of our government. So very sad. I also noticed that you did not address any of the challenges to your claims about the constitution. That says a lot about the strength of your position.


  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    apjonas wrote:
    I think LEOSA is equally unconstitutional as this proposed bill. The armored car personnel is a little more hazy since there is a legitimate interstate commerce component. The feds don't even pretend that is the case in LEOSA or the Allen bill. If this bill became law and was challenged it would probably take LEOSA down with it.
    I think both bills are bad news, especially the LEOSA. It is clearly an unconstitutional intrusion on the powers of states using the commerce clause. The courts ought to have the spine to say there is no commerce involved so the law is toast.

    I would feel a LOT better about Sen. Allen's bill if it was grounded in the second amendment. Say it declared that congress has determined that certain states are not recognizing the right of persons to bear arms without infringement. To secure that right in all states, minimum standards for issuance and recognition of concealed carry permits are instituted. The 14th amendment clearly gives congress the authority to pass laws to ensure states do not infringe on our rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    The LEOSA and Sen Allen's bills probably would not be deemed unconstitutional. The Federal Government has a duty to protect the rights of the people. If the federal government feels some states are violating peoples RKBA, they can justify this law based on that.

    While I find the interstate commerce justification inane, they can be justified on what I said. Licensed concealed carry would be constitutional, making it impossible or a burden ot get a license (of set of ) to cover you nationwide I would hope a court would find unconsitutional.

    This is why I feel Sen. Allen's bill is good.



    Remember, state's do not have rights, they have powers. They do not have the power to trump basic rights. If the federal government feels some states are trumping this right, they can and have every justification, to set in and "violate state's rights."



    Another interesting point, too many people have a view of the U.S.A. just being all 50 states. What about D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Northern Marianas Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Senator Allens's bill would cover people in these places as well since "state" is defined in Title 18 for firearms as all 50 states, D.C., all territories, and possessions.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    416

    Post imported post

    I like the way ilbob has described the situation. If Congress invokes the 2nd Amendment and the 14 Amendment, it would seem good. Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 3 is overused.

    ProguninTN

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    ProguninTN wrote:
    I like the way ilbob has described the situation. If Congress invokes the 2nd Amendment and the 14 Amendment, it would seem good. Article I, Sec. 8, Clause 3 is overused.

    ProguninTN
    It would also kick the antis square between the eyes. I would like to see that.

    I also think there is a good chance that sometime down the road a SCOTUS could well take a less expansive view of the commerce clause.

    My guess is that if such a bill was passed a few anti states would modernize their CC laws to deal more reasonably with non-residents, just as somestates have changed their laws to deal with the LEOSA.

    So even if it got declared unconstitutional down the road, it could still have some good effect.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    Post imported post

    I am reposting an analysis from http://californiaccw.org/posts/list/235.page

    ================================================== ==

    This forum is for discussion of HR 4547 and its counterpart in the Senate, SB 3275

    What is the meaning of this bill?

    Put simply, if this bill passes, a CCW permit from any state will be valid in any other state, just like a driver's license. This would be great for us in California or in any other state that is not yet shall-issue. We would be able to get non-resident permits (from Utah or Florida for example) and use these permits to carry legally in California. Realistically, if this bill passes, California sheriffs will probably start issuing more liberally.

    Note that it is highly likely that this bill will be challenged in court, and there might be some unlucky test cases (people in California charged with carrying without a permit) and this bill might not stand up. If this bill passes, please consult a lawyer before relying on it.

    Where can I find out more?

    GunLawNews: http://www.gunlawnews.org/House-Bills/hr4547.html

    The NRA-ILA analysis: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=189

    Text of the bill itself: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04547:

    What is the difference between HR 4547, SB 3275, and HR 1243 (and HR 990 and HR 218)?

    HR 4547 replaces the earlier bill, HR 1243. It has some minor differences. HR 1243 was introduced in March of last year, and HR 4547 was introduced in December. As far as I know, HR 1243 is no longer active. HR 4547 and SB 3275 are the same bill. A bill must be passed, in identical form, in both the House and the Senate, before it can be given to the president for signature. Therefore every bill has both an HR and a SB number.

    Anyone who supports HR 1243 should be equally supportive of HR 4547. There is not much difference between them, and anyway it's likely there will be some changes before it gets passed by the House. If you support national CCW reciprocity, support these bills.

    HR 990 was a bill from 2003 on the same topic. It had fewer sponsors and no companion Senate bill. HR 1243 had fewer sponsors and no companion Senate bill.

    HR 218 was the Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 (signed into law in 2004), which required states to allow certain classes of retired law enforcement officers to carry. Anyone who supported HR 218 should now support HR 4547, which will give non-LEOs the same access to self-protection as LEOs get under HR 218. Obviously, there has been no "blood in the streets" resulting from HR 218, and so none is expected with HR 4547 either.

    What are the chances of this bill passing?

    No one can see the future, but:

    1. This is an NRA legislative priority, and they usually don't get behind a bill if they don't think they are going to win.

    2. The NRA hasn't delivered us any wins at the national level recently. They got through some gun manufacturer liability protection but that doesn't have a direct impact on gun owners. HR 4547 would have a direct and visible impact. The NRA needs to deliver the goods on a national level, before the '06 elections when they might need to go on the defensive in Congress again.

    3. It has 21 sponsors in Senate and 85 in the House (as of June 30). That's a lot of sponsors.

    4. 40 states, representing 65% of the House of Representatives and 80% of the Senate, are now "right to carry" states of some variety.

    5. The "right to carry" movement is unstoppable.

    6. This bill is considered more "moderate" than the older HR 1243. Also, this bill has more sponsors than its two predecesors (HR 1243, 74 sponsors, HR 990, 68 sponsors, neither had a Senate companion). For comparison, HR 218, the 2004 Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act, had 297 co-sponsors when it passed, so HR 4547 has a ways to go before it gets to that level of support.

    So it looks good to me, but the bill isn't even out of committe, so it's too early to say. Write letters to your representatives, senators and president urging them to support this bill.

    Isn't it dangerous to let the Federal government start regulating CCW?

    That's one of the arguments against this bill, but the fact is, they already regulate guns and even CCW. They can ban guns (look at the now-expired Federal "assault weapons" ban and other Federal gun laws). They can regulate carry, for example with the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. This bill does NOT create a Federal CCW. It just requires states to recognize a CCW from any other state, just like they do with marriage certificates.

    Some people argue that we shouldn't need a law like this; the Second Amendment or the Full Faith and Credit clause are all we need. Those are interesting points to discuss but none of them will help you if you get caught carrying without a license in California, or New York or Chicago. The 2nd amend won't prevent you from getting arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced. Wouldn't it be better for Congress to pass a law clarifying that the 2nd amend protects CCW? Yes, but again, that's an interesting thing to discuss, not something which is relevant to the real world today, because Congress isn't going to pass anything like that in the foreseeable future.

    As a California resident, would I be able to use a Utah or other non-resident permit to carry in California under HR 4547?

    I don't know. In some other forums, people have said that this bill will not let a resident use a non-res permit in his own state, which is exactly what most us here would like to do (ie, California residents get Utah permits and carry in California). But the text of the bill says, someone with a permit issued by "a state", not "the state in which the person is a resident", meaning that we in California could get Utah permits and carry in San Francisco. A literal reading of the bill suggests that a permit from any state would work, just like a California resident can get married in any other state, and the marriage certificate is valid. I'm sure this is a question that will come up in the inevitable lawsuits. Again, if / when this bill passes, this is something you would want to ask your lawyer before you carry relying on this bill. But then, the title of the bill DOES refer to "non-residents". So I need to get a real answer from lawyers to know how to answer this question.

    Even if it wouldn't let CA residents carry in California, it would still be a huge win for us. If my literal reading ("a state" means "any state") is not correct, perhaps it would mean that we could get a Utah permit and carry in 49 other states. And the fact that out-of-staters who come to visit CA would be able to carry would put a lot of pressure on the authorities here to start issuing. People visiting from Nevada and Oregon could carry here, but Californians could not? That would make no sense and would be a powerful argument for change here.

    We can't lose with this law.

    What's the current status of this bill?

    As always, you can get the up-to-the-minute status from http://thomas.loc.gov . As of June 28th, the Senate bill is in the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House bill is in Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. The majority of bills die in committee, but as I said, a bill does not get dozens of co-sponsors unless it already has broad support within Congress. Congressmen, and the NRA-ILA, like to be on the winning side.

    However, it is possible that it won't make it this session. If it does not make it this session, and if the Republicans lose control of either house of Congress, this bill is dead. Otherwise, it has a good chance of passing this year or next.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •