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

[NavyVet1959]

On the reciprocity part, I note by reading the bill, most of the written objections from the House Members, had to do with that concept of unequal “strictness” of the laws between the states. And more specifically the requirements or level of training required. That seemed to be their main heartburn (or at least, excuse) for objecting to the national reciprocity part of the bill. Otherwise, everyone is expected to know and abide by the gun laws (and CHL laws) of the state they’re traveling into. But that’s what is expected now (for the states that have granted each other mutual reciprocity) - so there’s really no change in that regard.

Some people like to compare it to a driver's license that is accepted between states. Of course, this *should* not be the case since we shouldn't even have to have a license to be able to exercise a Constitutionally protected RIGHT. But, regardless, let's do that comparison just for the sake of argument. Each state has their own standards with respect to what is necessary for attaining a driver's license, but the are universally accepted between the various states when you are traveling. Some states require you to be able to demonstrate that you can parallel park during the skills portion of the test and others don't. And then there are some signage differences between the states. I remember visiting the NYC area probably 25 or so years ago and I was sitting in the car, waiting for my wife who was in a nearby store. There was a sign there that said "No Standing". I thought that kind of odd, but figured it was just like our "No Loitering" signs and they had a problem with drug dealers and prostitutes standing around and that was to prevent them from doing that. So, this meter maid comes up and tells me to move since it said "No Standing". I inform her that I'm not standing, I'm *sitting* in the car, waiting for my wife. She keep saying "no standing". We keep at this for awhile and I ask her if she really thinks I look like a street walker. At some point, she realized that we were having a failure to communicate and told me that "standing" up there meant to be sitting in a car waiting for someone. At that time, we had no such signs in Texas and quite frankly, I had never seen that terminology in any other place that I had visited over the years. I would not be surprised if that was on the NY driver's license test and not on the tests in many other states.

 

[Lunyfringe]

States that have constitutional carry also have CHL you can apply for reciprocity (AFAIK), so that's covered... and they could add it if they don't.
Although I also agree that requiring a license to exercise a God given right is bovine scatology, it's where we're at right now- a broken republic.

Going to correct my statement- Vermont currently has constitutional carry, but no program for licensed carry- so VT residents would have to get an out-of state CHL/LTC. Question is- does VT recognize such a license? it's not required to carry in VT, but they don't reject it, either. Some of these questions could make a difference to VT residents- but not an issue for TX residents travelling to VT (legal to carry now with no "papers")

 

[oohrah]

There are many more precedents of states NOT offering reciprocity, medical and professional engineering come to mind. I still hold little hope for this.

 

[Southpaw]

The complete bill as passed by the house.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38/text?loclr=cga-bill

(Too many words too post here )

Latest action...


12/07/2017 Senate Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

 

[JeepFiend]

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.

True, they are separate in the Senate, but even if approved in the Senate, it still has to go back to the House. It doesn't seem like anything is has been able to make it out of both houses of Congress, and I don't see this being such a landmark bill that it will actually pass through both. But yes, I could certainly be wrong.

As for the 60 days, as I stated previously, I doubt it will be honored to a T. But at least there is a limit set at which time the DOJ could be sued in a class action suit for violations of U.S. Code, and it is likely something the NRA-ILA would take up if not organizations like TSRA or CRPA. Presently, the FBI claims there isn't funding for the additional staffing. This bill specifically provides funding necessary to staff appropriately to meet the 60 day time frame, so that argument would be moot.

I don't know what you got from the GOA, but what I got was that this bill was going to cause anyone who ever had an unpaid traffic ticket to wind up on NICS and the government was suddenly going to start browsing through protected medical histories and adding even more folks to NICS based off of their findings. I just don't see that as actually happening. Again, in many states, if not most, traffic citations are civil infractions and not considered criminal. FTA, to the best of my knowledge, are also civil violations. So whether you go by state or federal definitions, an FTA wouldn't qualify you as a Fugitive from Justice or land you in the NICS database because it isn't considered a criminal offense. And while I'm sure NSA is already illegally collecting a large amount of data on citizens, I tend to think that making the fact that they are violating doctor patient privilege and scanning medical documents for information on U.S. citizens wouldn't go over well with even those that oppose guns. That's a whole different fight for personal privacy rights and a lot of groups would oppose that.

Again, just my thoughts. Maybe I am too optimistic.

 

[easy rider]

Any time you believe the government has your best interests in mind and should regulate it more, then yes, I believe you are being over optimistic.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Any time you believe the government has your best interests in mind and should regulate it more, then yes, I believe you are being over optimistic.

Hehehe right?

 

[busykngt]

JeepFiend, you’ve now made that point (about traffic tickets) at least three different times in this thread - no need to repeat yourself again. (It’s almost like you’re trying to convince yourself). You disagree with GOA’s assessment of the ‘Fix NICS’ - I happen not to disagree with them. I think they raise some valid concerns with the government’s ability to over step their bounds.

I’ll just leave with this quote from the GOA email and a link to their full notice about John Cornyn’s bill (which I would encourage everyone to read and then make the decision for themselves as to whether the ‘Fix NICS’ bill is agreeable to them):

“The Department of Justice reported in 2012 that 19.1% of denials (13,862) were as a result of being a “fugitive from Justice.” That category sounds ominous until you consider that unresolved traffic issues are one of the most common forms of bench warrants that can result in your becoming a “fugitive from justice.”
—
https://www.gunowners.org/alert12012017.htm

 

[AustinN4]

“The Department of Justice reported in 2012 that 19.1% of denials (13,862) were as a result of being a “fugitive from Justice.” That category sounds ominous until you consider that unresolved traffic issues are one of the most common forms of bench warrants that can result in your becoming a “fugitive from justice.”
https://www.gunowners.org/alert12012017.htm

Your quote sounds like it is already a reason for denial, not something new from the proposed law.

 

[NavyVet1959]

I've looked at both HR-38 and S-447 and I would have to say that the Senate bill is easier to understand. The House bill is ridiculous from a linguistic standpoint in that the sentence has so many clauses and runs on and on. If I read it one way, it seems to imply that if you live in a non-free state and have a CHL from another state, you will be able carry in your home state in addition to every other state. When I first read it, I read it in such a way that it seemed to imply that in such a case, you would not be able to carry in your home state AND not in any other state. And then there is that whole thing about the handgun having traveled in interstate commerce. Why is that there? Are they saying that firearms that are produced in a state and has never left the state are not allowed to be carried?

 

[Southpaw]

And then there is that whole thing about the handgun having traveled in interstate commerce. Why is that there? Are they saying that firearms that are produced in a state and has never left the state are not allowed to be carried?

Here's a guess based on this same language used in other federal laws.

I believe what they are saying they have no jurisdiction on guns made in a state if that gun is wholly made in a state, including all parts within. I don't believe it bans nor allows such a firearm under this bill since they would have no authority to say either way. I guess if this bill was law, States could ban guns not involved in interstate commerce from crossing into their state and not be in violation of the language in this bill.

 

[Big Dipper]

I've looked at both HR-38 and S-447 and I would have to say that the Senate bill is easier to understand. The House bill is ridiculous from a linguistic standpoint in that the sentence has so many clauses and runs on and on. If I read it one way, it seems to imply that if you live in a non-free state and have a CHL from another state, you will be able carry in your home state in addition to every other state. When I first read it, I read it in such a way that it seemed to imply that in such a case, you would not be able to carry in your home state AND not in any other state. And then there is that whole thing about the handgun having traveled in interstate commerce. Why is that there? Are they saying that firearms that are produced in a state and has never left the state are not allowed to be carried?

Probably the way to “justify” what some might see as an interference with “states’ rights” by indirectly relating it back to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 “The Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

 

[roadkill]

Here's a guess based on this same language used in other federal laws.

I believe what they are saying they have no jurisdiction on guns made in a state if that gun is wholly made in a state, including all parts within. I don't believe it bans nor allows such a firearm under this bill since they would have no authority to say either way. I guess if this bill was law, States could ban guns not involved in interstate commerce from crossing into their state and not be in violation of the language in this bill.

That would be interesting if it proves to be the case considering the feds are pursuing that guy in Kansas that bought a suppressor without a tax stamp under Kansas law which allowed it since it was built in Kansas and never left the state.

 

[NavyVet1959]

Here's a guess based on this same language used in other federal laws.

I believe what they are saying they have no jurisdiction on guns made in a state if that gun is wholly made in a state, including all parts within. I don't believe it bans nor allows such a firearm under this bill since they would have no authority to say either way. I guess if this bill was law, States could ban guns not involved in interstate commerce from crossing into their state and not be in violation of the language in this bill.

I guess it depends upon how far they extend the idea of "interstate commerce". S&W is located in MA and it's entirely possible that at least some of their guns are manufactured there and never leave the state. If they were to take the point of view that even the blocks of steel that the firearm are machined from must also be refined in that state the commerce clause not to be applicable, then it's less likely that you are going to find a gun that meets that criteria. Got wood grips? Did that wood originate in that state also? If not, then commerce clause applies. Got plastic grips? Well, plastic is made from petroleum, so did the petroleum that made the plastic come from oil that was produced by in-state wells and refined by in-state refineries? Gets kind of ridiculous after awhile. If you carry this to the extreme, it would prove difficult to produce a gun that did not involve interstate commerce somewhere during its manufacture.

Personally, I think that Congress has totally abused the interstate commerce clause over the years, using it for things that were entirely not within the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they came up with the clause.

 

[Southpaw]

I guess it depends upon how far they extend the idea of "interstate commerce". S&W is located in MA and it's entirely possible that at least some of their guns are manufactured there and never leave the state. If they were to take the point of view that even the blocks of steel that the firearm are machined from must also be refined in that state the commerce clause not to be applicable, then it's less likely that you are going to find a gun that meets that criteria. Got wood grips? Did that wood originate in that state also? If not, then commerce clause applies. Got plastic grips? Well, plastic is made from petroleum, so did the petroleum that made the plastic come from oil that was produced by in-state wells and refined by in-state refineries? Gets kind of ridiculous after awhile. If you carry this to the extreme, it would prove difficult to produce a gun that did not involve interstate commerce somewhere during its manufacture.

Personally, I think that Congress has totally abused the interstate commerce clause over the years, using it for things that were entirely not within the intentions of the Founding Fathers when they came up with the clause.

This is where I'm not so sure of either. I agree, it has the ability to get ridiculous. I'm thinking that in the least, if you have even one manufactured part from over state lines then the whole gun is now part of interstate commerce. Again, I was just sort of spit balling with the idea and I certainly have no background to say either way.

 

[Southpaw]

That would be interesting if it proves to be the case considering the feds are pursuing that guy in Kansas that bought a suppressor without a tax stamp under Kansas law which allowed it since it was built in Kansas and never left the state.

Certainly would be, but seeing how different courts interpret laws differently, I suspect you could come up without any real answer short of a SCOTUS ruling.

I wasn't aware of this case. I'll have to check it out.

 

[NavyVet1959]

This is where I'm not so sure of either. I agree, it has the ability to get ridiculous. I'm thinking that in the least, if you have even one manufactured part from over state lines then the whole gun is now part of interstate commerce. Again, I was just sort of spit balling with the idea and I certainly have no background to say either way.

I think that an argument could be made that it *should* only pertain to the frame / receiver of the firearm and after it has reached a point where it is no longer just a block of metal and instead something that needs to be registered. I seriously doubt the the feds would so restrict themselves though since they have even claimed some things to be subject to the interstate commerce clause when the things were obviously only produced locally and sold locally. I think that by putting that text in the bill, they are just stating their justification of creating the law and that to challenge the law, a state would have to challenge the interstate commerce clause (which seldom is successful). The feds don't want to give up any power to the states if they can help it.

 

[F350-6]

..... I remember visiting the NYC area probably 25 or so years ago and I was sitting in the car, waiting for my wife who was in a nearby store. There was a sign there that said "No Standing". I thought that kind of odd, but figured it was just like our "No Loitering" signs and they had a problem with drug dealers and prostitutes standing around and that was to prevent them from doing that. ....

Sounds like my experience a couple of decades ago on a trim to Kalifornia when I decided to follow some other cars in the left hand turn, and then freeway lane that had a diamond painted on the pavement every so often. Had been driving for quite a while at this point and had never heard of an HOV lane or knew what the diamond shape meant, other than it was saving me a bunch of time not sitting in traffic.

The difference is, now we have the internet and it's possible for the average joe to figure out where and what he can and cannot carry.

 

[busykngt]

The Interstate Commerce Act has a long and interesting history. The Act itself was passed in 1887 to provide the government some control over the railroads (acting somewhat like today’s “consumer watchdog” entities). But it is grounded in The Constitution as has been previously posted. It has been used many times in controlling commerce between the states, especially with regard to alcohol production and transportation (especially during prohibition). How strictly the Act is interpreted and enforced has historically been dependent on how liberal or conservative the SCOTUS is at the time the inevitable lawsuits hit that level of appeal.

Based on past rulings of The SCOTUS (especially during FDR’s ‘New Deal’ era), the guy in Kansas may well find himself in trouble. See the link regarding the Ohio farmer below - it serves as a prime example of the government using the Commerce Act to control crop production even when the crop remains within the same state (AND even when the crop is NOT sold!).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Some would argue, that to control production (crops OR guns) WITHIN the boundary of “a” state is outside the meaning of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, thus making the ruling “unconstitutional” and yet it was the Supreme Court’s ruling. And they, after all, are the government entity tasked with determining constitutionality of any law.

 

[NavyVet1959]

Sounds like my experience a couple of decades ago on a trim to Kalifornia when I decided to follow some other cars in the left hand turn, and then freeway lane that had a diamond painted on the pavement every so often. Had been driving for quite a while at this point and had never heard of an HOV lane or knew what the diamond shape meant, other than it was saving me a bunch of time not sitting in traffic.

Yep... Done the same thing...