Rep. Hudson to introduce Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act

[press1280]

I wish to subscribe to your optimism. Thanks for starting the morning right.

My concern is that there are show bills and safe votes. Safe votes are votes that please the constituents but won't upset the establishment - because they cannot become law. We saw Harry Reid nod his assent to Dem senators during a previous reciprocity vote, letting his Senator know that it was "safe" to go that way.

The GOP is Lucy and we are Charlie - always having the ball pulled at the last minute. They have used most every excuse imaginable to not protect our right. This time the cynic in me says "filibuster" is the excuse, even when it won't stop other acts from becoming law.But under it all I am optimistic like you. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

At the same time, I'm want to be ready to put my foot somewhere else if I see them pull the ball this time.

Now you have a point about the safe votes, although those would be from the Senate Dems. You can probably bet any dems in red states who are up in 2018 will be "released" to vote for it, so long as it doesn't add up to 60.

 

[Tomcat]

Had a thought as I was waiting to gain access to the base this morning. What about military bases? Trump said he would see carry on base permitted.

Bases are federal property, so if federal property were to be included it might gain some more support?

 

[swinokur]

I think Trump was referring to allowing uniform members of the Armed Services to carry their weapons on base, instead of making them gun free zones, aka Aloha Snackbar Major Hassan and the Chattanooga recruiting office.

 

[press1280]

Had a thought as I was waiting to gain access to the base this morning. What about military bases? Trump said he would see carry on base permitted.

Bases are federal property, so if federal property were to be included it might gain some more support?

I don't recall if that law was an executive order or law passed by Congress?
Assuming new legislation is required I actually don't see it necessarily helping reciprocity. I think they'll not be grouped together.

 

[JC92]

I don't recall if that law was an executive order or law passed by Congress?
Assuming new legislation is required I actually don't see it necessarily helping reciprocity. I think they'll not be grouped together.

It is easier than any of this, but the military is famously cautious in this respect. The DoD controls its own destiny, as outlined in DOD DIRECTIVE 5210.56. President Trump could easily provide additional help by mentioning to his SecDef to support CCW on base, absent any formalized EO.

 

[Southwest Chuck]

Let's become Lucy then !!!

I wish to subscribe to your optimism. Thanks for starting the morning right.

My concern is that there are show bills and safe votes. Safe votes are votes that please the constituents but won't upset the establishment - because they cannot become law. We saw Harry Reid nod his assent to Dem senators during a previous reciprocity vote, letting his Senator know that it was "safe" to go that way.

The GOP is Lucy and we are Charlie - always having the ball pulled at the last minute. They have used most every excuse imaginable to not protect our right. This time the cynic in me says "filibuster" is the excuse, even when it won't stop other acts from becoming law.But under it all I am optimistic like you. Otherwise I wouldn't care.

At the same time, I'm want to be ready to put my foot somewhere else if I see them pull the ball this time.

Why don't "WE" become Lucy, then??? Bear with me here .....

There are those who say we need to start to "fight fire with fire" and get down and dirty if we have to, to get our rights restored. I think it's time too, and this post is along those lines ...... crazy, outlandish, underhanded, with little actual chance of success, but is the style of politics the GOP needs to Start Playing!

Trump & the NRA need to call a strategy session with the utmost op-sec.
Let it be known (quietly) that 7-8, 10+ of the R-Senators are against the measure and plan to vote against it due to the States Rights issue on the reasoning that they want to give their constituents (in shall issue States) the future ability, if they so chose, to restrict gun rights if they see a future need to. The Senators only want to protect their people's future OPTIONS ! The Dems will jump all over that reasoning, to oppose it too, making the opposition bi-partisan . Let the GOP leadership Roast them , put on a good show for the Dems, suck 'em in .....

(Yes, those Republican Senators might get some heat for it, but they know what the end game is, and any political damage to them will be ziltch, in the end ..... and they might even be deemed Heros! )

Let the Dems believe ! As I said, Suck them in! ..... to the point that Shumer allows the vulnerable Democratic Senators to vote for the measure to show their constituents that they are supportive of their gun rights (in the hopes of getting re-elected) .... knowing all along that the measure won't pass due to the Republican opposition (to whom they can blame). When the vote is held, let them cast their vote in support ...

That's when Lucy (we the people) pull the football away from them, ol' Demo-Charlie ....

All the Republican Senators who were against the measure, suddenly have a change of heart at the last minute, and vote FOR the Bill. They heard from their constituents in droves, made their voices heard to them and have no intension, ever, to limit their gun rights, and are willing to cement their Right to Keep and Bear Arms via this law and want him/her to vote for it now ....

BAM !

My Utah permit is now good in my home State of CA .... and yours in MD !

F ***'em ........




........I know, it's nice to Dream once in awhile, though ....

 

[BeoBill]

I think this is germaine here

Came across this article just now (notice where):

Constitutional Carry Marches On
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444212/constitutional-carry-states-adopting

And so the train keeps rolling on. For years, advocates of the Second Amendment have fought tooth and nail to ensure that no American was left without the right to obtain a carry permit. Now an even more salutary standard has become fashionable: The abolition of the permitting system in its entirety. In 2015, three states added their names to the growing list of those that have adopted “constitutional carry” — states, that is, in which Americans do not need to obtain permits before legally carrying guns. Last year, another three joined their ranks. This year, the number joining could be as high as five. And after that? Le déluge.

Over at the Crime Research Prevention Center, John Lott Jr. notes that the number of “constitutional carry” states will reach 16 or 17 by the end of this year. Given that 15 years ago there was only one (two if you count Montana, which I’d classify as a “mostly constitutional carry” state) — and that 30 years ago most states had extremely restrictive permitting processes to boot — this is nothing short of remarkable. Elections, as it is said, have consequences...

 

[rockstarr]

id give it about 3 out of said 5 states will go this year.

I'd bet on ND, SD, and NH

Virginia damn sure isn't happening with mcawful in the governors house and Minnesota wont even make it to the governors desk.

id give Kentucky about a 50 50 chance

 

[Patrick]

I don't recall if that law was an executive order or law passed by Congress?
Assuming new legislation is required I actually don't see it necessarily helping reciprocity. I think they'll not be grouped together.

It was during the final days of Obama - Officers O-5 and above were authorized to permit carry for personnel based on local conditions and need. As with anything DoD related, "it's complicated."

Directive attached below.

It is easier than any of this, but the military is famously cautious in this respect. The DoD controls its own destiny, as outlined in DOD DIRECTIVE 5210.56. President Trump could easily provide additional help by mentioning to his SecDef to support CCW on base, absent any formalized EO.

I see three groups: those subject to UCMJ (generally uniformed military but not exclusively them); those cleared by the DoD for national-security related duty (not the same as security clearance); and those who are either visitors or contractors doing work that is not NatSec related (cafeteria workers, etc.).

Allowing anyone not subject to either UCMJ or some other federal regulatory control to carry on a federal installation would probably be complicated. In my mind the philosophical question is, "why would we allow armed persons who are not performing NatSec roles onto a military installation?"

The answer is, you wouldn't. The Trojans taught us not to let armed insurgents into your lines, and if you are not working on our team then you are a potential insurgent.

I think there are probably some civilian and contractor allowances here for people who are part of the trusted NatSec hierarchy, but allowing any old visitor or contractor to carry would be bad.

I'd like to see protected facilities required to provide safe portal services where people can store their personal firearms while they do business inside the fence. Not just DoD bases, but really anywhere that we see a "No Weapons Allowed" sign on a door.

 

[BeoBill]

It was during the final days of Obama - Officers O-5 and above were authorized to permit carry for personnel based on local conditions and need. As with anything DoD related, "it's complicated."

Directive attached below.



I see three groups: those subject to UCMJ (generally uniformed military but not exclusively them); those cleared by the DoD for national-security related duty (not the same as security clearance); and those who are either visitors or contractors doing work that is not NatSec related (cafeteria workers, etc.).

Allowing anyone not subject to either UCMJ or some other federal regulatory control to carry on a federal installation would probably be complicated. In my mind the philosophical question is, "why would we allow armed persons who are not performing NatSec roles onto a military installation?"

The answer is, you wouldn't. The Trojans taught us not to let armed insurgents into your lines, and if you are not working on our team then you are a potential insurgent.

I think there are probably some civilian and contractor allowances here for people who are part of the trusted NatSec hierarchy, but allowing any old visitor or contractor to carry would be bad.

I'd like to see protected facilities required to provide safe portal services where people can store their personal firearms while they do business inside the fence. Not just DoD bases, but really anywhere that we see a "No Weapons Allowed" sign on a door.

Don't ever forget that DoD regs and directives are always written by a committee. Just as an elephant is a horse designed by a committee. Sometimes an original thought or two manages to evade editing and accidentally slips through. I know this to be true from firsthand personal experience.

 

[Brooklyn]

And that is partially our fault. Look, universal background checks just SOUNDS sensible, even if it's completely ineffective. We should have been pushing for a free NICS check that can be done by smartphone or Internet years ago. There's no way we can win on the background check measure, as it sounds too good as a soundbite.

Use the permit as the UBC... Make it federal.. let NICS be an optional back stop for those that refused to get a permit..

The left will go for it. Meanwhile all gun sales become cash and carry for permit holders . No need to restrict out of state sales...Carry in all 50 states and the territories..

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

Use the permit as the UBC... Make it federal.. let NICS be an optional back stop for those that refused to get a permit..

The left will go for it. Meanwhile all gun sales become cash and carry for permit holders . No need to restrict out of state sales...Carry in all 50 states and the territories..

I would 100% agree with that. There are too many 2nd Amendment purists who would seemingly rather lose long term just so they can scream "But the 2nd Amendment gives me all the rights I need!" It's not productive.

 

[Kharn]

I would prefer they just punch a gun-shaped hole in the holder's driver's license if he/she is prohibited.

 

[swamplynx]

I would 100% agree with that. There are too many 2nd Amendment purists who would seemingly rather lose long term just so they can scream "But the 2nd Amendment gives me all the rights I need!" It's not productive.

I've echoed the same ad nauseam. I've had my rights trampled long enough by libs in slave states. If the Feds aren't here to secure our God given constitutionally enumerated rights, what are they here for.

 

[swamplynx]

Use the permit as the UBC... Make it federal.. let NICS be an optional back stop for those that refused to get a permit..

The left will go for it. Meanwhile all gun sales become cash and carry for permit holders . No need to restrict out of state sales...Carry in all 50 states and the territories..

In addition to FTF cash and carry, you could also add internet sales, open carry, long gun open carry, and ban local registration requirements for Federal permit holders in one swoop. Sounds like a lot of gained functional and real rights to me.

And yes, no need to preempt the existing state by state laws and system for those who don't want a Federal permit, and more importantly to also protect our ability to litigate against those laws.

 

[Peaceful John]

I've echoed the same ad nauseam. I've had my rights trampled long enough by libs in slave states. If the Feds aren't here to secure our God given constitutionally enumerated rights, what are they here for.

Respectfully, that phrase only became operative late on November 8, 2016. One day it will be November 8, 2024 and perhaps Elizabeth Warren or Chuck Shumer will be happily climbing the inaugural podium . . . and then what?

Until we have certainty that the Federal government will (a) forever restrict themselves to the few specific actions identified in the Constitution, and (b) that those acts conform with Original Intent (c) and are interpreted as strictly as possible, I think we should be cautious whenever the Feds involve themselves in almost anything.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

I've echoed the same ad nauseam. I've had my rights trampled long enough by libs in slave states. If the Feds aren't here to secure our God given constitutionally enumerated rights, what are they here for.

Exactly. The states have no "right" to prohibit concealed carry.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

Respectfully, that phrase only became operative late on November 8, 2016. One day it will be November 8, 2024 and perhaps Elizabeth Warren or Chuck Shumer will be happily climbing the inaugural podium . . . and then what?

Until we have certainty that the Federal government will (a) forever restrict themselves to the few specific actions identified in the Constitution, and (b) that those acts conform with Original Intent (c) and are interpreted as strictly as possible, I think we should be cautious whenever the Feds involve themselves in almost anything.

Look, the left will do these things EVEN IF WE GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVED TO OUR BENEFIT NOW. They don't NEED precedent, as they don't follow the rules when they're in charge. The idea that any rules we put in place to mandate concealed carry now can be used against us later is like saying, "You shouldn't shoot people who come into your house to rob you, as you're setting the precedent that violence is okay, which they might decide to use against you instead."

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

In addition to FTF cash and carry, you could also add internet sales, open carry, long gun open carry, and ban local registration requirements for Federal permit holders in one swoop. Sounds like a lot of gained functional and real rights to me.

And yes, no need to preempt the existing state by state laws and system for those who don't want a Federal permit, and more importantly to also protect our ability to litigate against those laws.

Agreed. And make failure to forfeit your permit when it's revoked a serious crime.

 

[Peaceful John]

Exactly. The states have no "right" to prohibit concealed carry.

There is also the argument that states have no right to prohibit OPEN carry, but that concealed carry is a privilege and may be subject to limitations. The position supporting OPEN carry as the core right, I think, grows stronger as time passes.