National Gun-Carry Reciprocity Bill Moves to Mark Up in the House

[Younggun]

The chance of the NFA going away is right in line with you or I getting elected as Pope.

You might consider using the quote feature when replying to individual posts, especially those from previous pages.

 

[diesel1959]

GOA’s position is, if you get a speeding ticket from some state while on vacation and fail to pay it, you technically become a fugitive from justice (assuming they issue a bench warrant for you). That’s why GOA has begun to refer to the ‘fix NICS’ bill as the ‘traffic ticket gun control’ bill. And they [GOA] raise some other, even more valid concerns like the cost you will have to bare if your name gets put “on the list” erroneously due to some foul up.

Pay your damn traffic tickets! DONE!

 

[diesel1959]

No I didn't disregard it. But like I said, with the exception of Texas, most tickets are infractions, not misdemeanors. The definition of fugitive from justice specifically defines it as fleeing a state to avoid prosecution of a felony or misdemeanor. So when I said a simple traffic ticket, it was to differentiate from something like reckless, wet reckless, or dui...which are pretty much misdemeanors or higher everywhere.

Regardless as to whether it's called an infraction or whatever, it's still a misdemeanor because at common law, anything for which the worst punishment possible is less than one-year in jail is a misdemeanor.

 

[JeepFiend]

Well, I'm no lawyer, so I'm not trying to argue, but from cornell.edu:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559

(a)Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;
(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;
(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;
(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;
(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;
(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;
(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;
(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or
(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

So it would seem that under federal law, there does exist an "infraction". And I would guess that this would be the rule of thumb by which the FBI would operate.

Again, not trying to be a schmuck, but from what I've read, I just don't see everyone and their brother that ever missed a traffic court appointment being tossed into the NICS database.

To add to that, they're really going to be overworked if they do, then within 60 days of individual paying a traffic lawyer to fix the ticket have to remove the name.

 

[roadkill]

Doesn’t matter what the ticket is classified in the state you receive it in. What matter is what your home state classifies it as. I’ve seen it to many times in trucking mags in the ask the lawyer section where a driver gets a ticket and the court says no points or whatever so they pay the ticket and when the ticket is forwarded to the drivers home state they receive points or the home state doesn’t have that particular violation and it gets translated to something else. So traffic tickets might not be a problem for some states but for Texas they could be. Unintended consequence? Who knows. At this point I’m not exactly sure how the whole mess will play out in the real world.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Can't be bothered to deal with your traffic tickets? Then leave your gun at home in those other states... in some states you're allowed to carry Jack and shit right now... and Jack left town.

So an opportunity to carry in those states after you pay your tickets is still an improvement, no? I don't see how this bill (either version) makes that worse.

 

[JeepFiend]

I think the biggest thing is, so you lose some rights for breaking the law. That sucks and all, but you did break the law...even if it was unintentional. Now, however, there is a way to get removed from the NICS database in a timely manner. To me, that's YUGE! If you are thrown in NICS for getting a ticket, which I still doubt will happen, you have a way to get out of it in 60 days from paying your fines. If you're improperly denied for purchasing a gun, you have a way to get out of it. It's not like you missed court and you can never buy a gun again....you just have to pay for your f**k up first. Just my $0.02.

 

[diesel1959]

Well, I'm no lawyer, so I'm not trying to argue, but from cornell.edu:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3559

(a)Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—
(1) life imprisonment, or if the maximum penalty is death, as a Class A felony;
(2) twenty-five years or more, as a Class B felony;
(3) less than twenty-five years but ten or more years, as a Class C felony;
(4) less than ten years but five or more years, as a Class D felony;
(5) less than five years but more than one year, as a Class E felony;
(6) one year or less but more than six months, as a Class A misdemeanor;
(7) six months or less but more than thirty days, as a Class B misdemeanor;
(8) thirty days or less but more than five days, as a Class C misdemeanor; or
(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

So it would seem that under federal law, there does exist an "infraction". And I would guess that this would be the rule of thumb by which the FBI would operate.

Again, not trying to be a schmuck, but from what I've read, I just don't see everyone and their brother that ever missed a traffic court appointment being tossed into the NICS database.

To add to that, they're really going to be overworked if they do, then within 60 days of individual paying a traffic lawyer to fix the ticket have to remove the name.

SMDH

 

[Recoil45]

The GOA is against anything the NRA supports. Ignore their BS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

SMDH

Seriously, no offense intended, but I'm a little curious as to why you're SYDH.

What did I say that was that foolish? I'm not easily offended. If you have a legitimate point, I'm willing to listen to valid points opposed to my opinion. I like to learn stuff.

What I listed was actual federal law. Is it an aspect of federal law that doesn't apply here? I don't think it's unlikely that the FBI would make their judgement and statutes based off of existing federal law (if it applies). When I looked up "Common Law", I got https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+law.

Where is my flaw? Where did my thinking go wrong? Because the definition of "Common Law" doesn't really seem to apply. As another poster noted, a lot will be dictated by the state...however, I tend to think it will matter more to where the state the violation occurred vs. you're home state. In his point, sure, you're state manages points on your driving record. In this case, the state in which the violation occurred will be reporting to NICS. Mainly since in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 the feds go back to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed. And infractions aren't even considered criminal, they're civil violations. So I'm not sure why that would be reported to NICS.

If there's a legitimate concern, I'd love to know what it is. I just don't see the concern being legitimate. I'd love for you to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

[easy rider]

No worries, I'm sure your name couldn't get on a "No Buy" list any more then a baby's name could end up on a "No Fly" list.

 

[busykngt]

I think the biggest thing is, so you lose some rights for breaking the law. That sucks and all, but you did break the law...even if it was unintentional. Now, however, there is a way to get removed from the NICS database in a timely manner. To me, that's YUGE! If you are thrown in NICS for getting a ticket, which I still doubt will happen, you have a way to get out of it in 60 days from paying your fines. If you're improperly denied for purchasing a gun, you have a way to get out of it. It's not like you missed court and you can never buy a gun again....you just have to pay for your f**k up first. Just my $0.02.

I don’t see/read where there is a such a guaranteed proactive role (on behalf of the individual) of the government in protecting the individual’s ability to get an error corrected. Paragraph #2 talks about a change to the Brady law, mandating a “review” within 60 days, effectively looking for errors in newly submitted names. But it is not set up as a “sunset” type rule that would automatically remove a name from being submitted if positive evidence isn’t submitted to substantiate the being individual being placed on the “no go” list.
I see they do allocate additional funds to support the government’s review process. But again, I don’t see anything in this bill that serves to empower the individual’s ability to get an error corrected and have their name removed in a timely fashion (and without cost, in time or money to the individual).

 

[gll]

A few difference I've seen

Testing is no longer administered at the local DMV. They've been shifted to hubs. Scheduling is more difficult and the wait times much longer.

If my medical card expires my CDL is gone. I must go through the entire process again. For some reason, not getting my blood pressure checked in time erases everything I know. This is part of Texas becoming aligned with fed regs.

Written tests are done on computer. It used to be you paid and tested until you passed. Now you have 3 fails on 6-7 tests (maybe more depending on number of endorsements) and you have to pay again. Didn't effect me then as I went in, passed them all, and was done. Some guys have more trouble. The study guides are crap, poorly written and sections are often not well matched with their associated test.

When these changes started it came up in conversation with my brother in law who works for DPS was at the time doing inspections near the border. He informed me that the changes were due to this DOT reg "alignment".

I see your point on standardizing laws, I just fear gun friendly states could take a hit.

I got a Chauffeur's license, in 1980, as a school bus driver. When the CDL came along, I was grandfathered in, except that I had to written test for endorsements. I passed tank vehicles, passenger, and double-triple trailers, without stuying failed a couple others, and since I never intended to use any of these I didn't retest.

I was notified of this last change, requiring medical certification before my birthday two years ago. I've had the CDL so long, even though i don't use it anymore, I decided to try and keep it, just for the helluva it, passed the med and went to DMV to renew. Filling out their forms, I found that I could renew intrastate only and not need medical certification. So, my CDL, still with it's other endorsements, now says intrastate only.

I expect, like you suggested (I think), that if Concealed Carry Reciprocity passes (which is far from sure), eventually we will see the Fed establish requirements for licensing that are more onerous than the States might otherwise require, just like they did for CDL.

If my experience with the CDL is an example, though, I doubt that such Federal requirements could be mandated for intrastate carry.

Unless I am wrong, it's that same limit of commerce clause restriction on the Fed's reach that will preclude Fed mandated BGC on intrastate private gun sales, no matter how much Fed wants them. Some State issues may still be beyond the reach of the Fed.

All that said, I've been opposed to National Reciprocity, from the beginning, for the simple reason that it gives the Fed an intro into control of something it's had no control of to date.

 

[JeepFiend]

I don’t see/read where there is a such a guaranteed proactive role (on behalf of the individual) of the government in protecting the individual’s ability to get an error corrected. Paragraph #2 talks about a change to the Brady law, mandating a “review” within 60 days, effectively looking for errors in newly submitted names. But it is not set up as a “sunset” type rule that would automatically remove a name from being submitted if positive evidence isn’t submitted to substantiate the being individual being placed on the “no go” list.
I see they do allocate additional funds to support the government’s review process. But again, I don’t see anything in this bill that serves to empower the individual’s ability to get an error corrected and have their name removed in a timely fashion (and without cost, in time or money to the individual).

(2) in subsection (g), by adding at the end the following: “For purposes of the preceding sentence, not later than 60 days after the date on which the Attorney General receives such information, the Attorney General shall determine whether or not the prospective transferee is the subject of an erroneous record and remove any records that are determined to be erroneous. In addition to any funds made available under subsection (k), the Attorney General may use such sums as are necessary and otherwise available for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to comply with this subsection.”.

 

[diesel1959]

Seriously, no offense intended, but I'm a little curious as to why you're SYDH.

What did I say that was that foolish? I'm not easily offended. If you have a legitimate point, I'm willing to listen to valid points opposed to my opinion. I like to learn stuff.

What I listed was actual federal law. Is it an aspect of federal law that doesn't apply here? I don't think it's unlikely that the FBI would make their judgement and statutes based off of existing federal law (if it applies). When I looked up "Common Law", I got https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/common+law.

Where is my flaw? Where did my thinking go wrong? Because the definition of "Common Law" doesn't really seem to apply. As another poster noted, a lot will be dictated by the state...however, I tend to think it will matter more to where the state the violation occurred vs. you're home state. In his point, sure, you're state manages points on your driving record. In this case, the state in which the violation occurred will be reporting to NICS. Mainly since in https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921 the feds go back to the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed. And infractions aren't even considered criminal, they're civil violations. So I'm not sure why that would be reported to NICS.

If there's a legitimate concern, I'd love to know what it is. I just don't see the concern being legitimate. I'd love for you to enlighten me if I'm wrong.

We're talking about State law, and not Federal law. Traffic violations are state law violations, not federal law violations . . . and no matter how you slice it, a misdemeanor means ANYTHING for which you can not possibly be sentenced to jail for a year or more. If the person is at risk of ANY jailing for less than a year, it's a misdemeanor. That's black letter law that you learn early on in law school.

 

[busykngt]

Yep, that’s the part I was in reference to. My general sense is, you are a lot more trusting in the government correcting their errors, than I am.

I predict the way that will play out in reality is, “the Attorney General” will begin to operate under the assumption their information is good (always) and the proof to the contrary will fall upon the individual to prove differently (just like it does now). That is what I meant by referencing a sunset rule. Unless the individual’s name “goes away” (i.e., is dropped and not added) automatically - unless their ‘guilt’ is proactively proven - there is not enough protection in the law to suite me! And I believe that’s a point GOA is trying to make too.

 

[JeepFiend]

I guess that's because I've gone through an erroneous denial, had the denial overturned, and received a UPIN via the VAF system so no more denials. So I know it works. Had I not had the assistance of Senator Cornyn, it would likely have taken two years instead of 4 months. With this law, it sets the standard at 60 days...to me that's a bonus. Now they have a time limit. I doubt it will be honored to a T, but it's a far bit better than what we have now. As many have said, this is all likely moot as it will most probably not pass the senate. But I still a benefit instead of utter doom and gloom, and that's what I got from reading the GOA email this morning, yesterday, the day before, and the day before that.

 

[JeepFiend]

We're talking about State law, and not Federal law. Traffic violations are state law violations, not federal law violations . . . and no matter how you slice it, a misdemeanor means ANYTHING for which you can not possibly be sentenced to jail for a year or more. If the person is at risk of ANY jailing for less than a year, it's a misdemeanor. That's black letter law that you learn early on in law school.

right, and under most state laws that I'm aware of, traffic tickets are not criminal. They're civil. They don't get reported to NICS. If you do it in a state like Texas, you better pay your damn ticket. If not, you got some hoops to jump through. But you can still get off NICS and buy a gun if you pay your fine and go through the appeal process.

Again, I'm rarely, if ever, in favor of more laws. I'm certainly not in favor of laws that basically say, obey the law. If it didn't work the first time, a second law is unlikely to yield different results. I'm not on the Fix NICS bandwagon per se...well, as I read more about the 60 day review and removal time, I'm thinking more and more that maybe this does fix NICS because it actually allows false positives a chance. But I'm a pretty strict Constitutionalist and believe anyone should have a gun...felons and violent offenders included. The second amendment never classified individuals that shouldn't have their rights infringed upon...but if they are going to classify individuals, setting a mandate that allows for improperly prohibited folks to get out of the database, I see that as a positive.

 

[busykngt]

As far as I know, the two bills are still separate in the Senate. And quite to the contrary, I and several others here, think the ‘Fix NICS’ bill WILL pass in the Senate - it’s the ‘National Reciprocity’ bill that’s not like to pass in the Senate (IMO).

I might ask, IF the 60 day review is not completed on an individual, is their name removed from consideration of being banned? I don’t think so; at least I don’t see that being stated in the bill. And further, what is the “penalty” to the government for exceeding the 60 day review period? Again, I don’t see any repercussions to the government for taking longer than sixty days to make their final decision on an individual. The worse thing is, it’s still going to put the burden on the individual to prove to the government that their name shouldn’t be on the list.

 

[busykngt]

I hope this doesn’t come to pass but I’m beginning to see this whole mess playing out exactly like GOA predicted. The House passes their combined bill (i.e., the Natl Reciprocity & fix NICS) - which they have. The Senate does not pass their Natl Reciprocity bill but does pass their Fix NICS bill. The Senate has effectively killed the National Reciprocity issue. Meanwhile they pass and send their Fix NICS bill to be “reconciled” with the single House bill and the reconciliation committee does what they do: drop the reciprocity portion of the House bill and that leaves ONLY the ‘Fix NICS’ portion to become law. GOA has already warned about this situation.