1. Thank you Mossberg Owners for making us the greatest Gun forum on the planet.

Concealed Carry Reciprocity is on the Move: Your Lawmakers Need to Hear from You NOW!

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by Pawpaw, Nov 27, 2017.

  1. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    Yeah, but they're combining all the crimes during the one time it was used illegally.

    It could've been in the millions.

    Billions even.

    Wanton endangerment to everyone in the whole world.

    See?
  2. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    Got another email concerning this.

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

    There is a Constitutional Carry reciprocity bill in the Senate right now that does not contain any gun control — and that’s S. 446. It does not contain the Traffic Ticket Gun Ban which was passed by the House.

    please read more info here:
    https://www.gunowners.org/alert12012017.htm
    CaddmannQ and ripjack13 like this.
  3. CaddmannQ

    CaddmannQ 12g Supporter

    Messages:
    5,533
    Well the house passed a bill. Unfortunately I think it contains the bump stock BS.
  4. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569


    (unrelated to the video, I also reported the ad that played before this video as terroristic and for inciting)
    MikeD likes this.
  5. MikeD

    MikeD I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    11,029
    The whole concept of constructive intent/possession is a catch all intended to ensnare people and needs to be removed. IMHO.

    This is what happens when we elect lawyers to run the government. You will never convince me that this is not by design.
  6. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
    I stopped at 4 min.... a little bit on the idiot/sky is falling side when he compares mental responsibility to not taking out the trash. Come one.. FFS... really.

    How long has this definition been on the books? How many people have been placed on denied list for his hysterical scenarios? Thought so.
  7. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    I think his comparison was just to show how a particular scenario could be played out. As to answer your question of how many people have been affected by "medical determinations"?

    Many veterans have lost their right to own a firearm because they were diagnosed with ptsd.

    So, you asked for one example when someone were denied their rights on the grounds of medical reasons for "mentally defective", and with little recourse of having their rights restored.

    There is at least one answer.

    Though I dont' know how many hundreds of thousands of people it has affected altogether. But it is far more than just the "one example" that you asked for. More than a quarter of a million actually.

    Here is more information from multiple sources and agencies and organizations concerning it to give you a better understanding of the process.

    http://www.guns.com/2016/03/25/lawmakers-want-answers-why-va-stripped-260k-vets-of-gun-rights/

    Further, obama has several EO's concerning past medical records which are still in effect.

    Yeah, that is ripe for abuse.
    MikeD likes this.
  8. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
    I'm talking about forgetting about taking out the trash or forgetting something in the other room as he so eliquently stated in his video.

    I'm aware of the VA being a bunch of dick bags on both allowing our vets to die intentionally and denying them their constitutional rights.
  9. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    What about seeing a psychiatrist?

    What about being prescribed an anti-depressant (whether for its' common use or for another purpose because meds are often prescribed for multiple things)?

    I'm not saying someone would be banned for forgetting to take out the trash (though that could be an early symptom of demensia or alzheimers), but I can sit and think of several possibilities.

    ADD?

    ADHD?

    The wording in the bill is far too vague and is ripe to be abused.
  10. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
    Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/ transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:
    (1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
    (2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
    (3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
    (4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been admitted to a mental institution;
    (5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
    (6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
    (7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
    (8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or partner’s child;
    (9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

    These are the same questions on 4473. It's not re-writing existing law. It's already the law. It's been the law for quite some time.

    Normally I'm on board with what's being discussed. But from actually reading the bill myself I don't see the issues people are coming up with.

    There's a huge difference in seeing a psychiatrist and literally being admitted into a mental institution.
  11. MikeD

    MikeD I'm Your Huckleberry Staff Member Global Moderator "Philanthropist"

    Messages:
    11,029
    Mental illnes or diagnosis of a mental defect can be very subjective based who is making the diagnosis.

    It has always been a slippery slope.

    Antis have tried to label gun owners as mentally disturbed and paranoid for a long time. How long would it take for these folks to get appointed to the governing bodies and arbitrarily declare people mentally unhinged because tbey own 50 guns and are afraid the gov is going to take them away?

    I guess I don't see it as being that much of a stretch. Esp with what I see going on already with wildlife game boards, gun boards, etc.
  12. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    adjudicated by whom watermonkey?

    A person may be adjudicated by someone other than a court or a judge. As is apparent by the VA additions of veterans said to have ptsd, as the earlier example.

    Another example:

    Agency X runs a generic search in your medical history for Rx = SSRI

    (ssri are a term for an antidepressant)

    ssri are commonly prescribed to patients with lower back pain too, but since it's an antidepressant, the term still gets a hit by your name

    Agency X turns the information over to NICS that you are taking SSRI medication, regardless of the reason for it.

    Agency X adjudicated that John A. is taking an antidepressant, and reports his name to nics as an automatic denial.
    ------------------

    Example 2

    John A. marries a woman who already has a child.

    The step child is diagnosed with ADHD 6 years later.

    That child is no longer receiving treatment for ADHD nor has needed treatment in the past 10 years, however, they are still in the childs medical records.

    ADHD is a type of "mental deficiency".

    In reference to the video above, that child may be adjudicated as being ineligible to own a firearm due to past diagnosis. Even whether they no longer are being treated for that and show no further signs of it. I would also reference PTSD, which can also improve in time, however they are on permanent denial status with nics.

    The "child" whom is now an adult is ineligible to own a firearm because of the earlier medical history.

    I'm telling you, this is a bad bill.
  13. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
    the legal term limits adjudication to a court decision or a legal arbiter:

    Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation, including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved.

    Has anyone placed that VA decision to the courts? I dont see any.

    I do see a HR resolution disbanding that practice altogether

    Roe sponsored H.R. 1181, the "Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,"

    The VA was utilizing an Obama rule for those under social security for those "mentally defective or incapable of handling finances". President Trump eliminated that EO in February 2017.
  14. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    The bill you referenced wasn't passed by the senate or signed into law by a president.

    Even if Trump "deactivated" obamas EO, could just as well be enacted again by any future president using their own EO.
  15. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
    I understand that but it's on the table to fix the VA bs. Although, I'd assume they would have better results having a class action lawsuit against the VA for denying constitutional rights without due process. I would venture it would be highly successful.

    I'm wondering why the NRA or SAF didn't take on the case?

    yet... they can place injunctions on EOs for people coming into our country that aren't even effing citizens... mind boggling.
  16. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
  17. Water Monkey

    Water Monkey The man, the myth, the monkey Forum Moderator Supporter

    Messages:
    3,316
  18. John A.

    John A. I'm "THAT" guy Staff Member Global Moderator Forum Moderator

    Messages:
    11,569
    I agree.

    And more the reason why I think this is a bad bill. Too "vague". Too open-ended for interpretation.
    MikeD likes this.
  19. Scoop

    Scoop .308

    Messages:
    1,226
    NRA likes it:

    https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...eciprocity-passes-us-house-of-representatives
    In a resounding show of support for the Second Amendment, the U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a legislative package that included H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, and H.R. 4477, the Fix NICS Act of 2017. The bipartisan vote of 231 to 198 advanced a measure that would allow law-abiding Americans who are eligible to carry a concealed handgun under the law of a state to do so in all other U.S. states and territories that recognize the right of their own residents to carry concealed. Without a doubt, this is the strongest piece of self-defense legislation to ever come before Congress. It would also help shore up the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used for licensing and retail firearm purchases by adding additional layers of transparency and accountability to the system.

    With Wednesday’s vote, the U.S. Congress ratified the premise that firearms in the hands of law-abiding Americans are a force for good. This of course has been borne out again and again over the past three decades, as more and more Americans have embraced their right to bear arms for self-defense through concealed carry. The nation’s violent crime rate has fallen to historic lows during this time, and concealed carry licensees have proven themselves one of the most law-abiding populations in America.

    Today, all 50 states have laws under which residents may carry or apply to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense. Forty-two states and the District of Columbia broadly recognize a right to do so. The remaining eight states, however, have laws that allow even the most qualified applicants to be denied a license unless they can show an extraordinary “reason” for having one.

    This results in an arbitrary and unconstitutional system where people are denied their right to carry not because they’re a public safety risk but because licensing officials simply don’t believe that “ordinary” people should have the right. Meanwhile, favoritism and corruption are permitted to flourish, with licenses handed out to celebrities, rich political donors, and sometimes even applicants with disqualifying backgrounds who can afford to bribe the right people.

    H.R. 38 would end this two-tiered system and ensure that no upstanding American would be denied an effective means of self-defense while traveling from state to state.

    Needless to say, antigun forces will be marshalling an all-out effort to try to block concealed carry reciprocity in the Senate. The same people who insist that Congress has essentially unlimited authority to pass nationwide gun control that would undermine the pro-gun polices of most states are hypocritically citing “states’ rights” as a reason to oppose concealed carry reciprocity.

    Yet under H.R. 38, states would maintain complete control of the standards by which they issue their own concealed carry licenses. And property owners, whether public or private, would maintain discretion over the carrying of firearms on their own premises. The primary effect of the bill would be that a handful of anti-gun states could no longer arrest and prosecute travelers simply for crossing into their territory with an otherwise lawfully carried concealed handgun. Any criminal behavior committed with that firearm, of course, would still be subject to the full force of local law.

    Opponents of H.R. 38 argued against the bill by citing statistics concerning firearm-related crime and suicide. They did and could not, however, establish that lawful concealed carriers are the driving force of these incidents. Indeed, violent crime and criminals who recognize no restrictions on their own actions are the very reason law-abiding people wish to have their own means of self-protection. Concealed carry reciprocity simply helps even the playing field between law-abiding Americans and predatory criminals.

    If the Senate is to send the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to President Trump for his long-promised signature, American gun owners will have to make their voices heard as never before in the nation’s history.​

    Wednesday’s vote was a huge step forward for the right of law-abiding Americans to carry a firearm for self-protection, but the fight is not over yet.​
  20. Scoop

    Scoop .308

    Messages:
    1,226
    GOA not so much:

    https://www.gunowners.org/goa-statement-national-reciprocity-passing-house.htm
    “While Gun Owners of America appreciates the House of Representatives for passing Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity, GOA continues to vehemently warn congressmen about the dangers of the ‘NICS Fix’ provision, which can also be referred to as the ‘Parking Ticket Gun Ban.’”

    GOA Statement On National Reciprocity Passing In House
    The Gun Owners of America issued a statement last night regarding H.R. 38. Again, the organization is very critical of the Fix NICS portion of the bill, which was combined in the House with national reciprocity.

    Here’s their statement:

    Executive Director of Gun Owners of America (GOA) Erich Pratt made the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 38, which is now the carry reciprocity and background check bill:

    “While Gun Owners of America appreciates the House of Representatives for passing Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity, GOA continues to vehemently warn congressmen about the dangers of the ‘NICS Fix’ provision, which can also be referred to as the ‘Parking Ticket Gun Ban.’

    “Hopefully, the passage of the reciprocity language in the House will serve to kill the background check language in the Senate. As recently as this week, Democrat Senator Chris Murphy said that such a combined bill would be dead on arrival in the Senate because he and fellow Democrats consider reciprocity a poison pill.

    “Passing a stand-alone reciprocity bill will restore concealed carry rights and save lives. Gun owners should not see their right to protect themselves end at their state lines.

    “So GOA will continue to rally our 1.5 million grassroots supporters to kill the ‘NICS Fix’ language and to pass a clean, Constitutional Carry-friendly reciprocity bill in the Senate, such as S. 446.”

    To read GOA’s analysis of the current political battlefield facing gun owners, please see here.

    Now, in GOA’s analysis linked to in the statement above, they do make some excellent points worth considering.

    First, it’s entirely likely that there simply aren’t enough votes in the Senate. This is entirely true, and I believe part of the logic behind combining the two bills together was to try and use Fix NICS to leverage Senate Democrats into voting for the bill. However, many anti-gun Democrats are willing to vote against Fix NICS in this case.

    In other words, by combining the two bills, the House may have ensured that neither passes.

    However, if you oppose Fix NICS as a general thing, and you know national reciprocity won’t happen in the Senate, then it’s not a bad move combining the two. Sen Chris Murphy, a significant anti-gun legislator, referred to national reciprocity as a poison pill, and he’s not wrong. By combining the two bills, you make it impossible for gun grabbers in the Senate to skate out of either voting for pro-gun regulations, or voting against a bill that’s arguably gun control.

    Talk about a win/win.​

Share This Page