NRA and 2012 legislation

[LMTD]

They (NRA) seem to be back pushing the National Reciprocity Bill at the Federal level, too. A bill I have actively been against. They have received my emails on this subject too.

I haven't been watching the National R bill that close, it will most likely traw a veto out of the big 0 anyway.

I would however be interested in your thoughts, I am fairly sure I do not support it at any level beyond fantasey. Inviting the feds into anything is a HUGE mistake as they do NOTHING well at all, well not true, our military kicks butt, other than that part they suck.

 

[Redbaron007]

I haven't been watching the National R bill that close, it will most likely traw a veto out of the big 0 anyway.

I would however be interested in your thoughts, I am fairly sure I do not support it at any level beyond fantasey. Inviting the feds into anything is a HUGE mistake as they do NOTHING well at all, well not true, our military kicks butt, other than that part they suck.

My first thoughts are very similar to yours; the Fed does very little well, except the military.

The second thought is, if this becomes law it will now be a national privilege, no longer a right. If it HAS to pass, my request would be to bring it under the 2A; therefore, making it a right. After it passes, this opens the door for this law to be tweaked, depending on the party in power, to their wishes; possibly requiring national training and a host of other hurdles to climb, in addition to the individual states requirement.

I know on the surface, many think it is harmless, in fact, a win for the 2A. This is the fallacy. It will not be like this in the future; if Dems regain power, then they will adjust to fit their anti-agenda; the Repubs then adjust it to fit their agenda. So, year to year it can become a ping-pong ball. I know the NRA says they will police this bill, to make sure nothing happens to it. Although I am a NRA supporter, I don't want this to be policed by them....again opening the door for even more political fondling!

As to it passing; I'm getting the funny suspicion that KO would sign it; it is an election year and it potentially could garner him votes...he'll sign it. He would love to say he is 2A friendly. As of right now, he hasn't been anti 2A; his administration has made comments that they are, but his actions speak differently.

That's my thoughts in a nutshell.

 

[LMTD]

After it passes, this opens the door for this law to be tweaked, depending on the party in power, to their wishes; possibly requiring national training and a host of other hurdles to climb, in addition to the individual states requirement.

That's my thoughts in a nutshell.

Spot on, you would see the "well if there is going to be a national recognition, there has to be a national standard" and next thing you know it becomes a whole new division of the federal government requiring funding and oversight!

Nothing about any of that does more than make me puke a little into the back of my throat!

 

[kcgunfan]

Let me ask some questions about this point, because frankly, I don't understand the logic behind it.

Let's say this law passes. It is your concern that an administration/Congress hostile to gun rights will use the legislative process to add on additional restrictions/requirements above what a state requires? Does that basically state the concern correctly?

In that case, I would like to ask what evidence (there I go with that e-word again) that this will happen? I'm sure that there will be bills submitted, we get nut ball bills like that every single year. But, those bills always seem to die in committee, never even reaching a full vote. And, it seems to be that case irregardless of whoever is in office. What about the National Reciprocity bill will give these other bills legs?

In addition, what prevents Congress from writing a national standards for concealed carry bill now, without approving the reciprocity bill?

This is seriously a honest question. I think I understand the concern you both have, but I haven't seen it play out in legislation over the past decade or so that I've been paying attention.

Jason

Spot on, you would see the "well if there is going to be a national recognition, there has to be a national standard" and next thing you know it becomes a whole new division of the federal government requiring funding and oversight!

Nothing about any of that does more than make me puke a little into the back of my throat!

 

[moneymaker]

OC for Missouri is dead,NRA just wants your money to make them richer,keep paying them dues:lol:

 

[Redbaron007]

Let me ask some questions about this point, because frankly, I don't understand the logic behind it.

Let's say this law passes. It is your concern that an administration/Congress hostile to gun rights will use the legislative process to add on additional restrictions/requirements above what a state requires? Does that basically state the concern correctly?

In that case, I would like to ask what evidence (there I go with that e-word again) that this will happen? I'm sure that there will be bills submitted, we get nut ball bills like that every single year. But, those bills always seem to die in committee, never even reaching a full vote. And, it seems to be that case irregardless of whoever is in office. What about the National Reciprocity bill will give these other bills legs?

In addition, what prevents Congress from writing a national standards for concealed carry bill now, without approving the reciprocity bill?

This is seriously a honest question. I think I understand the concern you both have, but I haven't seen it play out in legislation over the past decade or so that I've been paying attention.

Jason

You concerns and questions are understandable.

First, if this bill is passed under the Commerce Clause, as presented, it is now considered a privilege; meaning it is not a right to carry, it is a privilege to CCW by the federal gubbermint. Once it becomes a privilege, then the tweaking can begin. It is easeir to tweak an existing law than it is to pass a new one. Plus, what department does this new privilege fall under? Depending on the dept and the director, they can institute administrative changes without neccessarily changing the law....i.e. the IRS, Obamacare etc. So that is why it shouldn't pass under the CC.

Congress can create and pass a national carry bill now; the question is, where will it fall under and will it have the votes, currently. The answer is no; it doesn't have the votes. If it were to fall under the 2A, it may be tolerable.

The issue is, the courts have not said CCW is a right; until this occurs, the states treat it like a privilege. I know we can all agree it falls under the 2A; but the reality is no court has said this. Until there is confirmation through the courts, it will remain a privilege or until a state or the feds say it falls under the 2A.

I hope that helps. Anyone else, please feel free to add or clean up any confusion I have created.

 

[LMTD]

Let me ask some questions about this point, because frankly, I don't understand the logic behind it.

Let's say this law passes. It is your concern that an administration/Congress hostile to gun rights will use the legislative process to add on additional restrictions/requirements above what a state requires? Does that basically state the concern correctly?

In that case, I would like to ask what evidence (there I go with that e-word again) that this will happen? I'm sure that there will be bills submitted, we get nut ball bills like that every single year. But, those bills always seem to die in committee, never even reaching a full vote. And, it seems to be that case irregardless of whoever is in office. What about the National Reciprocity bill will give these other bills legs?

In addition, what prevents Congress from writing a national standards for concealed carry bill now, without approving the reciprocity bill?

This is seriously a honest question. I think I understand the concern you both have, but I haven't seen it play out in legislation over the past decade or so that I've been paying attention.

Jason

I appreciate the question and no, there is no evidence that something that has not even happened yet will result in something else happening in the future if it should happen so to speak.

What I am PREDICTING might happen if the feds get involved is some of the NATIONAL anti-gunners now get to step back into the fray, SCOTUS might have a couple more liberals inserted, and you have states like Cali throwing a fit because folks can carry there beyond the elite, and then you are going to have Bloomberg and the bunch involved and it becomes a mirad of new proposed federal regulations to standardize training requirements, background issues, perhaps even lending itself back to microstamping etc.

Gun rights in this country are on some sort of gigantic pendulum and swing both ways, right now it is swinging the right way and avoiding political uprisings at the federal level IMHO is very wise.

Simply look at the weed issue, some states go forward with weed laws allowing minor distribution, the feds still say no. I frankly think there are fewer anti-weed folks than there are anti-gun folks, opening the potential can of worms and spending YEARS and DOLLARS fighting the feds on new laws will be energy and money better spent working at the state level,.

As you can see if you are following it, some stated are already asserting sovereignty and are opting OUT of it, AZ has I heard, have not read about it myself yet, puter puked yesterday.

 

[SavageOne]

My first thoughts are very similar to yours; the Fed does very little well, except the military.

The second thought is, if this becomes law it will now be a national privilege, no longer a right. If it HAS to pass, my request would be to bring it under the 2A; therefore, making it a right. After it passes, this opens the door for this law to be tweaked, depending on the party in power, to their wishes; possibly requiring national training and a host of other hurdles to climb, in addition to the individual states requirement.

I know on the surface, many think it is harmless, in fact, a win for the 2A. This is the fallacy. It will not be like this in the future; if Dems regain power, then they will adjust to fit their anti-agenda; the Repubs then adjust it to fit their agenda. So, year to year it can become a ping-pong ball. I know the NRA says they will police this bill, to make sure nothing happens to it. Although I am a NRA supporter, I don't want this to be policed by them....again opening the door for even more political fondling!

As to it passing; I'm getting the funny suspicion that KO would sign it; it is an election year and it potentially could garner him votes...he'll sign it. He would love to say he is 2A friendly. As of right now, he hasn't been anti 2A; his administration has made comments that they are, but his actions speak differently.

That's my thoughts in a nutshell.

I must admit to being a bit confused by your position on this legislation. When I made similar arguments as to why I could not support HB1369, your response was that it was more important to get something on the books and then "tweak" it to eventually, hopefully get the legislation we want. How do you now reconcile your position on HB1369 with your position on this legislation?

 

[Redbaron007]

I must admit to being a bit confused by your position on this legislation. When I made similar arguments as to why I could not support HB1369, your response was that it was more important to get something on the books and then "tweak" it to eventually, hopefully get the legislation we want. How do you now reconcile your position on HB1369 with your position on this legislation?

State vs Fed (Big difference)

 

[9026543]

Two different bills on nation wide CCW in Congress

And of course the NRA supports the comprise bill that would require a national CCW permit as a privilege. As usual the NRA does not support the right to bear arms as a right instead of being a privilege.

http://gunowners.org/al031312.htm