National Reciprocity action today?!?

[Vaquero]

Mebbe we ought to "Occupy the 2nd".

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

Mebbe we ought to "Occupy the 2nd".

Would it be an armed occupation?

 

[Texan2]

. If you think the NICS isn't used for secret gun registration, you have more trust in Uncle Sam than I.

That is pure tin foil. When NICS is called the info on the gun you buy is not passed on to NICS, only the fact that you are buying a gun. If you have a CHL, no NICS call is ever made at all.
NICS is not gun registration, defacto or otherwise.

 

[smtimelevi]

No doubt. As per my legal interpretation we've always been able to carry, even without a permit. However, it used to be a large hassle with the whole police, prison and all.

My interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that no legal entity in the US has legal authority to write ANY law regarding ownership or carry of firearms. It's called freedom. We should stop paying it lip service and actually exercise it.

The gubbmint will argue this until the day we put them in their place. Problem is they only believe in their freedom not ours. Frankly I'm sick of the governments bs, I know I'm not the only one. We the people need to send them out back and fetch them a switch so we can put a whoopin on their back sides. The thing is we have made alot of forward progress in the 2a arena so I think it might be hard to get enough people to stage an effective protest.

 

[Kimber_me_timbers]

That is pure tin foil. When NICS is called the info on the gun you buy is not passed on to NICS, only the fact that you are buying a gun. If you have a CHL, no NICS call is ever made at all.
NICS is not gun registration, defacto or otherwise.

Thats true, however, CHL or not, the model and serial number are both recorded on that yellow sheet that must be kept indefinately by the FFL making the sale, and for non-chl'ers, when an NICS is called in, the FFL identifies him/her self with their pin, your name and social security number and whether it be a long gun or a handgun. The feds dont care what your brand preference is, but if you dont think they know how many NICS checks have been called in on an individual, and how many long guns and handguns that individual has purchased, then I need to ship you a roll of tin foil. The same applies to CHL'ers, when an FFL gets audited by the BATFE, all that information gets stored in a database somwhere. Its illogical to assume otherwise.

Granted, because its legal in texas to make private purchases and sales, that will invalidate the majority of those records, but theyre still undoubtedly kept somwhere. Maybe for nothing more than statistical data.

 

[Texan2]

Thats true, however, CHL or not, the model and serial number are both recorded on that yellow sheet that must be kept indefinately by the FFL making the sale, and for non-chl'ers, when an NICS is called in, the FFL identifies him/her self with their pin, your name and social security number and whether it be a long gun or a handgun. The feds dont care what your brand preference is, but if you dont think they know how many NICS checks have been called in on an individual, and how many long guns and handguns that individual has purchased, then I need to ship you a roll of tin foil. The same applies to CHL'ers, when an FFL gets audited by the BATFE, all that information gets stored in a database somwhere. Its illogical to assume otherwise.

Again you are straying into an area you seem to know little about. The audit information may get stored but the audit does not contain your name and what guns you purchased. Have you been there when an FFL gets audited? Its not that big a deal. Threre is no big data transfer to the ATF.

Do I like the ATF and the role they play....not really.
But you are making statements of fact based on assumption and speculation, and they are not correct.

NICS is not a defacto gun registration.

 

[LEVI]

Ok, I watched the debate yesterday on C-Span. From what I heard Rep. Lamar Smith-R. Texas say and argue it sounds like a good thing to me. Why should someone from Mass. be able to conceal carry in Texas but it's not reciprocal to us? This bill would fix that. You should have heard what Rep. Louise Slaughter-D New York and Rep. Bobby Scott-D Virginia had to say. They sounded like complete morons. Scott kept babbling about someone getting an internet permit and then using it to go to other states that have stricter requirements, total b.s. Another democrat (forgot his name and state) wanted to know why they were wasting time with this because it didn't have anything to do with creating jobs.??? Either this guy is up for re-election or he turned down the wrong hall and ended up in the wrong debate. When Scott was asked if there were any states that allowed carry permits through the internet alone all he had to say was, "it was unclear". It boiled down to the Republicans for it and the dems. against it. But if you watch this you'll see the dems. just throwing shit against the wall and hoping something will stick. So on the surface this looks good to me. I do see concern from fellow gun owners here on this board about amendments being attached, national registry of guns, etc. Am I wrong to think that if this bill is passed and then these things that "might happen" come up we fight those then?

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

Ok, I watched the debate yesterday on C-Span. From what I heard Rep. Lamar Smith-R. Texas say and argue it sounds like a good thing to me. Why should someone from Mass. be able to conceal carry in Texas but it's not reciprocal to us? This bill would fix that. You should have heard what Rep. Louise Slaughter-D New York and Rep. Bobby Scott-D Virginia had to say. They sounded like complete morons. Scott kept babbling about someone getting an internet permit and then using it to go to other states that have stricter requirements, total b.s. Another democrat (forgot his name and state) wanted to know why they were wasting time with this because it didn't have anything to do with creating jobs.??? Either this guy is up for re-election or he turned down the wrong hall and ended up in the wrong debate. When Scott was asked if there were any states that allowed carry permits through the internet alone all he had to say was, "it was unclear". It boiled down to the Republicans for it and the dems. against it. But if you watch this you'll see the dems. just throwing shit against the wall and hoping something will stick. So on the surface this looks good to me. I do see concern from fellow gun owners here on this board about amendments being attached, national registry of guns, etc. Am I wrong to think that if this bill is passed and then these things that "might happen" come up we fight those then?

The concern is that if they create a law requiring reciprocity then they will inevitably place restrictions and conditions on it that the states wouldn't have.

IMO, they Fed gov. has no authority to regulate weapons and the BATF has no authority under the Constitution to even exist. However, since we all live in reality we know all too well that this can potentially be just another spring board to national regulation of concealed carry.

 

[Texan2]

passed the House today.

 

[TheDan]

passed the House today.

*narrrgbl* brain hurting...

 

[Bithabus]

If this passes and Obongo doesn't veto we know there has been a terrible mistake

 

[matefrio]

If this passes and Obongo doesn't veto we know there has been a terrible mistake

Ain't that the truth.

 

[Vaquero]

I expect you won't recognize it when the senate gets through with it.

 

[Texan2]

It may have a bridge to nowhere attached to it or some legislation about Fanny and Freddie.

 

[TexasFats]

It may have a bridge to nowhere attached to it or some legislation about Fanny and Freddie.

What we need to worry about is if the Senate Democrats manage to attach Boxer's S 176 to it. That would be a poison pill of the first order. S 176 has been ignored but it would establish national standards for licensure that include rolling everybody back to "may issue" with a requirement that applicants "show need". Right now, Boxer's bill does not seem to have any traction even in the Senate, but this might give it new life. CONSTANT VIGILENCE IS NEEDED!

atriot:

 

[mkburden]

If this passes and Obongo doesn't veto we know there has been a terrible mistake

+1

 

[scott.novus]

+1

+2

 

[M. Sage]

The feds dont care what your brand preference is, but if you dont think they know how many NICS checks have been called in on an individual, and how many long guns and handguns that individual has purchased, then I need to ship you a roll of tin foil.

NICS records are immediately destroyed. It's against federal law for the BATFE to retain them, and BATFE employees have publicly complained about the fact that they cannot retain those records. The only surviving record of the NICS check is the 4473, which the gun store keeps.

So no, they have no idea how many NICS checks have been conducted on you or me or anybody else on this forum.

 

[Ruger74]

NRA and GOA support this bill. Honestly i don't know what to think of it

 

[jeepinbanditrider]

NICS records are immediately destroyed. It's against federal law for the BATFE to retain them, and BATFE employees have publicly complained about the fact that they cannot retain those records. The only surviving record of the NICS check is the 4473, which the gun store keeps.

So no, they have no idea how many NICS checks have been conducted on you or me or anybody else on this forum.

I thought I remember an article a while back saying that a setting on some of the databases was "accidentally" set wrong and they had "accidentally" stored thousands of NICS inquiries. I'll have to see if I can found that again.