DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus House Approves Concealed-Carry Reciprocity

House approves concealed-carry reciprocity, gun bill faces challenge in Senate

House Republicans on Wednesday voted in favor of making concealed-carry permits valid across state lines, scoring a major victory for gun-rights supporters.

But similar Senate legislation still faces an uncertain future, with top Democrats and other gun-control advocates rallying in opposition on Capitol Hill.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act passed 231-198 in the GOP-controlled House, with six Democrats voting in support.

“For the millions of law-abiding citizens who lawfully carry concealed to protect themselves, for conservatives who want to strengthen our Second Amendment rights, and for the overwhelming majority of Americans who support concealed carry reciprocity, Christmas came early,” Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., the bill's sponsor, reacted.

Hudson had tried unsuccessfully for years to pass such legislation, which he says simply attempts to clarify the patchwork of state laws that confuse citizens who might unwittingly be arrested while going from state to state.

"Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police.”

The three-term congressman has garnered strong support for his bipartisan legislation -- including 213 co-sponsors as well as 24 state attorneys general and the National Rifle Association.

“Despite scare tactics by the bill’s opponents, concealed-carry licensees as a group have proven to be more law-abiding than the general population and even the police,” the NRA said before balloting. “We are on the eve of passing the most expansive piece of self-defense legislation in the history of Congress.”

New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler said at a rally outside House chambers, that Hudson’s bill represented “a gift to the gun lobby.”

Another critic is Jane Dougherty, whose sister, a teacher, was killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. She said, “This bill would weaken laws that I have worked hard for.”

Those attending the rally continued to make the argument that the bill would put guns in the hands of criminals, and suggested that those from states with loose concealed-carry laws would be able to exercise those privileges in places like New York City that have stricter requirements.

“When I go to New York, I have to follow New York’s laws,” Hudson recently told “Fox News @ Night." He also maintains that the bill in no way softens background checks.

Those at the rally also contended that the House bill was combined with so-called “Fix NICS” legislation so it could pass. The reciprocity bill includes efforts to create “maximum coordination” in states providing the federal government with mental health records and other information for FBI gun background checks.

The Fix NICS Act of 2017 is a bill that applies penalties to government agencies for not reporting to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

“They are combining these to pieces of legislation together because they know the conceal carry (bill) is extremely unpopular,” said Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy. Murphy praised Texas Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican who sponsors the Senate version of the concealed-carry legislation, for keeping the measures separate.

Gun-control advocates are also reportedly getting $25 million from ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, through his Everytown for Gun Safety group, to block the reciprocity bill.

Cornyn’s bill is now in his chamber’s Judiciary Committee.

In 2013, Cornyn got support for his bill from 13 Democrats, including seven who are still in the Senate. He would need their support and more to pass the measure with a 60-vote majority, considering Republicans have 52 senators in the chamber.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/...-advocates.html

I sure hope they get this done.

Good news. I'm curious about the details and how specific scenarios would unfold.

The status quo of law-abiding CCW holders with a valid permits carrying, and then committing a felony if they cross state lines (as determined by a complex set of laws from each individual state) was just kind of nuts.

Yup good news and it sets a standard for when Cannabis is legalized on the federal level. All states will have to accept it's legality equally.

Yep, that right there is your problem. It is illegal at the Federal level. Do like we are doing and work to change the law. Until then, obey the law like we do on Concealed Carry.

So much for States' Rights

That's the thing. Guns are already legal by the 2nd amendment. They always have been. If dope is legalized, so be it, but an amendment must be repealed to get rid of, "shall not be infringed".

40 doesn't understand the concept of States' Rights.

You with the all Imperial Wizards of the world aren't going to stop the cannabis industry in the USA.

Or civil rights

It's more likely that certain marijuana laws would be repealed at the federal level, and then states would be free to come up with their own laws. We already have a thread about this though.

so the GOP will pass stuff like this, but won't pass a bill ending the gun show loophole on background checks.

mmk.

It's not even an hour since this thread has been made and the usual bunch is already here to derail it with talk about weed and thinly-veiled accusations of racism. Some things never change.

To be fair, he's never displayed an inability to understand what "civil rights" mean as a concept.

He just appears to be against them.

Not now. This sets a new standard. All States have to recognize this and accept the new federal CC guidelines and the laws of other states even if their laws are completely different. The same must hold true now with new federal guidelines and laws on Cannabis, firearms and other things like alcohol, tobacco, gambling, and such.

How is it different than a drivers license?

states can set their own laws to obtain a CCP. This is stating that if someone abides by those laws to obtain one, that other states would recognize it.

That's some loophole.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/3/most-illegal-attempts-to-buy-guns-online-fail/

Most attempts to illegally buy guns online fail, according to a study by federal investigators who found the internet serves as a small loophole for firearms purchases.

Federal agents posing as illegal gun buyers failed in nearly all of their dozens of attempts to purchase guns online, according to the multiyear study that tried to examine how current firearms laws could apply to purchases over the internet.

All 72 undercover attempts to buy guns through readily accessible internet sites failed, though agents did manage to make two buys out of sevens attempts through the more restrictive “dark web,” according to the recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

“Tests … demonstrated that private sellers GAO contacted on gun forums and other classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to an individual who appeared to be prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the report said.

In 56 cases, sellers ultimately refused the transactions, either because they wouldn’t ship a firearm or because they ended up nixing the transaction after an agent said they had been convicted of a felony or had other issues legally barring them from getting a gun.

In 32 states, there are currently no laws — federal or state — regulating firearms sales between private individuals at gun shows.

https://www.thoughtco.com/gun-show-laws-by-state-721345

i find it funny you posted something about online gun sales. that kind of deflection might work on guys like Haus and 40, but i'm not gullible.

What does the link have to do with secondary market loopholes? Do you think the internet is a gun show?

This thread is about concealed carry reciprocity and not about gun sales. States Rights on gun sales. Federal Rights on Reciprocity.

Well for one, there is no federal law saying that States have to accept or recognize each others' driver licenses. The States have opted into a compact. Also, all 50 States have little variance in the requirements to operate a motor vehicle and the tests are very similar. For CCW you have nothing like that at all. And 19 States do not require a license to conceal carry in public. It's extremely different. On one hand you have a bunch of states agreeing to a set of rules and on the other hand you have the federal government overriding States' Rights.

If you believe the left's "gun show loophole" you are. You must not have clicked the link, or you would have seen this paragraph.

Current federal gun statutes don’t specifically address the internet as a venue for sales. But regardless of the transaction venue, people generally can’t sell or ship a gun to someone who they reasonably believe is banned from having one, or in the case of an unlicensed dealer if the buyer lives in a different state.

In other words, if you sell a gun to someone that is barred from owning one, you can be criminally charged. If I made a living selling firearms, I would not endanger my business, life, or freedom by selling illegally. People who sell illegally don't care and will not follow the law anyway. As you anti gun people like to reference pot sales so much, it's like someone that illegally sells dope. They don't sell to people that will get them arrested.

Do you not know what a gun show is?

i really dont care for you guys who get hard ons for guns more than you do women.

so i used this gun thread to inform you that the gun show loop hole is a big problem that still hasn't been addressed.

yea....

Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.

"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...-gun-show-loop/

i dunno what you're talking about, but most people are aware of how this actually works in practice, while what you're talking about is only in theory.

Gosh, do they show guns there?

You should have read the entire article.

My wife is a marksman. She's very sexy without it, and more sexy with it, but the gun will never provide for my needs as she does. Not sure why you would even think that.

Well the part you replied with was about buying guns online. That's not what a gun show is. So now I just clicked the link and found they don't talk about gun shows either, but completely about trying to buy a gun online. And if you read the report, the agents self reported to all buyers that they were not legally allowed to own a gun. I'm not sure if criminals are so transparent in their transactions. Are you going to waste everyone's time or have a discussion?

Try this line:

But regardless of the transaction venue, people generally can’t sell or ship a gun to someone who they reasonably believe is banned from having one, or in the case of an unlicensed dealer if the buyer lives in a different state.

Does it have to specifically spell out g-u-n s-h-o-w for you to understand. If you sell a gun illegally, you are liable civilly and legally for how it's used. You will never stop illegal gun sales. A collector who sells guns (otherwise a private seller - spelled it out for you) will not risk their freedom or gun collection to sell to someone they think is banned from owning.

My wife and Daughter are Concealed Carry Card holders.

are you calling your daughter sexy?

Can you post an article with stats backing up that claim? One line in an article isn't going to cut it. Especially when that statement has so many qualifiers "generally can't" "reasonably believe is banned". Do those terms apply to gun shows? Maybe but, the author would've said the words if it was probable.

And yes, when talking about a gun show loophole, it would be preferable to actually use the words gun show. Conversations work best when both people talk about the same things. So posting stats about internet venues not selling guns to self-reported criminals and saying "Some loophole" is just disingenuous. You're condescending attitude about it is not conductive to having a sincere discussion.

I guess no private seller sell online. No, I'm not going to take time to dig up an article for you to dismiss, especially when you already know the answer.

Let me ask you a simple question. Would you sell a gun to someone you thought was a criminal or would use it in a criminal act? A criminal will do that. A respectful gun owner would not. It's as simple as that. Your belief that people would privately sell a gun to anyone is as dumb as the democrats "gun show loophole" nonsense.

Probably not, but how would I know such a thing? I've bought a few guns from gun shows and have sold a few as well. I do not know what the guns will be used for or what the people will do with them, so I take a safe approach with everyone and take a picture of their Driver's License as well as a picture of a written receipt. That's my way to deter any nonsense. But I realize not many sellers follow those steps. So how do you tell if someone is a criminal or not during the 5-10 minutes you get to meet with them. Remember that the police in the study self-identified as an ex-felon. Not everyone will be so upfront about their criminal history.

I know this isn’t gun shows .. but its along the same lines ...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/...-backfires.html

Dem-ordered study to expose illegal online gun sales backfires

A Democrat-backed study meant to expose illicit online gun sales instead seemed to show the opposite -- with hardly any sellers taking the bait when undercover investigators tried to set up dozens of illegal firearm transactions. ....

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., as well as Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, had commissioned the Government Accountability Office report to look into how online private dealers might be selling guns to people not allowed to have them.

Their efforts were based on a 2016 report from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which claimed that “anonymity of the internet makes it an ideal means for prohibited individuals to obtain illegal firearms.”

“Congressional requesters asked that GAO access the extent to which ATF is enforcing existing laws and investigate whether online private sellers sell firearms to be people who are not allowed or eligible to possess a firearm,” the GAO report said.

Over the course of the two-and-a-half year investigation, agents tried to buy firearms illegally on the “Surface Web” and the “Dark Web,” generally by sharing their status as “prohibited individuals” or trying to buy across state lines.

But the GAO revealed that their 72 attempts outside of the dark web were all “unsuccessful.”

“Private sellers on Surface Web gun forums and in classified ads were unwilling to sell a firearm to our agents that self-identified as being prohibited from possessing a firearm,” the GAO reported, noting that in their “72 attempts ... 56 sellers refused to complete a transaction once we revealed that either the shipping address was across state lines or that we were prohibited by law from owning firearms.” In the other cases, the investigators' website was frozen or they encountered suspected scammers.



On the dark web, GAO agents successfully purchased two guns illegally, as the serial numbers on the weapons were “obliterated” and “shipped across state lines.” But in the attempt to purchase, the GAO agents “did not disclose any information indicating they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.”

Based on the findings of the study, the GAO said it is “not making recommendations in this report.”

Cummings, Warren and Schatz did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment on the GAO’s findings.

The National Rifle Association seized on the report to claim that online sales are in fact regulated, calling the study an "embarrassment" for the gun control lobby.

“GAO’s findings showed nothing so much as that private sellers advertising online are knowledgeable about the law, conscientious, and self-policing,” The National Rifle Association said, adding that online gun sales are “subject to the same federal laws that apply to any other commercial or private gun sales.” ....

The NRA described the study as an attempt to model the findings of former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2015 report, titled “Point, Click, Fire: An investigation of illegal online gun sales,” which found that 62 percent of private sellers were willing to proceed with a sale, even if the prospective purchaser could not pass a background check.

It's literally the exact same report.

The Gabriel Giffords attack by Jared Loughner incident says otherwise.


Link



Link



Link

------------

Anyways, you were saying?

INTERNET FIREARM SALES
ATF Enforcement
Efforts and Outcomes of GAO Covert Testing

https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/688535.pdf

How so? Loughner bought his gun from a store and passed a backround check. He'd never been convicted or committed. It wasn't a private "gun show loophole" type sale.

Just wait for your background check before you can buy a bong.