User Panel
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This will have a poison pill AWB attached to it before it gets signed, and it absolutely *WILL* have a new AWB on it. BET ON IT. This is *NOT* A good thing folks. There's a Feinstein and Shumer dying for this bill to make it to the Senate. ETA: And the Republicans will vote for it even if it's got a new non expiring AWB on it. They should have fucking waited until *AFTER* the election before they opened this can of worms. This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! What ARE you talking about? Why in the world would the senate tack an AWB on to this? It passed the house with no amendments, that's a pretty good sign of very acceptable legislation. The Senate is, on the whole and compared to recent years, a pretty pro gun body. There is zero reason whatsoever to expect an AWB to be tacked on to this. I can see you slept through HS civics, but even if they did tack an amendment AWB on to it, it would have to go back to the house, provided it got brought back up again- and do you think Dems would piss on the gun control third rail at this point in time, with an election year around the corner? That said, if by some ridiculous sort of process and suddenly the senate decided to break with their long term habits and did add an AWB, the house would kill it. It's important to reiterate this passed the house relatively quickly with ZERO amendments. That's not by any means an unheard of accomplishment, but its a pretty good sign. Expect this to be brought up reasonably quickly in the Senate and passed with little fanfare. Gun control doesn't get votes, but pro-gun movements do- an NRA rating is important to the senate leadership. Obama will likewise pass it because its late in an election cycle and gun control movements would hurt him more than help him at this point in time. If he doesn't sign it or does veto, it's more ammo to throw at him next year. ETA: Most recent bill text here. The "amendment" one person mentioned is, I believe, the government program audit, which is hardly something to take any real issue with. Bureaucracy at work and excess government bloat, but if you'd try to kill this bill over that, then you'd need to re-evaluate your priorities. Not an amendment to the parts of the bill we actually care about, and the status of the bill is "Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed". |
|
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Second Amendment. Ever heard of it? Makes guns a Federal issue. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF are you talking about?
Ultra vires. This legislation is shit. State rights It is bad law, but the 10th amendment is dead. I would vote for it. THANK YOU!!!! I've been preaching this shit since they started talking about it. It will allow never before access over state rights and shit all in our corn flakes. It's candy coated shit!! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. |
|
Quoted:
Under the radar gun control is somewhere being worked on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile AWB, registration or mag capacity limits get tacked on and it gets passed 30 seconds later with an unrecorded voice vote. Zero signs it the next day. 86 MG ban anybody. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This will have a poison pill AWB attached to it before it gets signed, and it absolutely *WILL* have a new AWB on it. BET ON IT. This is *NOT* A good thing folks. There's a Feinstein and Shumer dying for this bill to make it to the Senate. ETA: And the Republicans will vote for it even if it's got a new non expiring AWB on it. They should have fucking waited until *AFTER* the election before they opened this can of worms. This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! It just passed the house with ZERO amendments. If the Senate adds something bad to it, the house will kill it. But we have a pro-gun majority leader in the Senate, and this has been passed in the Senate before. It's not "bad", and if it comes to a silly scenario like you're claiming, it will simply be killed. You do realize, do you not, that even the dems won't vote for an AWB, right? Out side of a couple of ideological morons, gun control is dead. Check your facts....I think they did add one amendment......if you have one fact wrong..what else do you have wrong? Or you can check your facts. I've been through everything I can find, and everything says no amendments. So please cite if there's something else. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This will have a poison pill AWB attached to it before it gets signed, and it absolutely *WILL* have a new AWB on it. BET ON IT. This is *NOT* A good thing folks. There's a Feinstein and Shumer dying for this bill to make it to the Senate. ETA: And the Republicans will vote for it even if it's got a new non expiring AWB on it. They should have fucking waited until *AFTER* the election before they opened this can of worms. This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! Got any real proof of this? |
|
Quoted:
I fear this might be a stepping stone to a federal issued CCW. And who knows what requirements you would have to have to get one. I say leave it the way it is. The way it is now the lib states just get less tourism money. I wish it were, because I'd get one of those in a heartbeat, fuck the states' desire to fuck over my rights. But it isn't. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Under the radar gun control is somewhere being worked on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile AWB, registration or mag capacity limits get tacked on and it gets passed 30 seconds later with an unrecorded voice vote. Zero signs it the next day. 86 MG ban anybody. This isn't 1986. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Under the radar gun control is somewhere being worked on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile AWB, registration or mag capacity limits get tacked on and it gets passed 30 seconds later with an unrecorded voice vote. Zero signs it the next day. 86 MG ban anybody. This isn't 1986. You're right. The ones in office now are much worse (and many of them are the same people from '86) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF are you talking about?
Ultra vires. This legislation is shit. State rights It is bad law, but the 10th amendment is dead. I would vote for it. THANK YOU!!!! I've been preaching this shit since they started talking about it. It will allow never before access over state rights and shit all in our corn flakes. It's candy coated shit!! NOT a state's rights issue, period. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Under the radar gun control is somewhere being worked on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile AWB, registration or mag capacity limits get tacked on and it gets passed 30 seconds later with an unrecorded voice vote. Zero signs it the next day. 86 MG ban anybody. This isn't 1986. You're right. The ones in office now are much worse (and many of them are the same people from '86) No, most of them aren't, and even the democratic senate majority leader is pro gun. So you're worried about nothing. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. It's very likely to pass the Senate. I think Obama *may* sign it, because if he doesn't he knows it's going to hurt him badly in the election. |
|
Not if you become a resident of CA or HI. Then your GA permit would be a non-resident permit and will not help you. The same thing with me since I moved to MD. Now my FL permit is a non-resident... even though then never mailed me a new one without my FL address on it. Military. Official residence is still in GA; in CA on orders. Besides, it says GA under my name up there. |
|
i forget what part of the constitution says that my rights are a priviledge?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Guam is going to capsize next. That's what I'm afraid of I'm glad it didn't happen while I was stationed there |
|
Quoted:
Not if you become a resident of CA or HI. Then your GA permit would be a non-resident permit and will not help you. The same thing with me since I moved to MD. Now my FL permit is a non-resident... even though then never mailed me a new one without my FL address on it. Military. Official residence is still in GA; in CA on orders. Besides, it says GA under my name up there. Lucky you. haha. I however would be screwed. I think those of you that think the senate and BHO would "never" pass this are thinking with logic... not politically. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It does very little except establish a standardized picture id for concealed carry. You can already carry a handgun across state lines. It just has to be secured and separated from the ammo. My Georgia license is honored by 28 states now. I'll deal with the other 22 for now to not have the carry permit end up like a driver's license. Show me where it standardizes the appearance of the license. And our Georgia licenses WILL be looking like a driver's license within a couple of years, which MOST states already do. ETA: It DOES mention having a photo ID but doesn't say that it has to be the license: ‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms ‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person |
|
Quoted:
It does very little except establish a standardized picture id for concealed carry. You can already carry a handgun across state lines. It just has to be secured and separated from the ammo. My Georgia license is honored by 28 states now. I'll deal with the other 22 for now to not have the carry permit end up like a driver's license. huh? None of that makes any sense. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. |
|
I just can't see Obama signing this unless it is somehow attached to a bill he desperately wants passed, like the ability to carry in national parks and wildlife refuges was included as an amendment to the credit card bill he wanted.
If the Senators and congressmen who purport to really want to see this bill enacted they will find a way to slip into a bill that Obama will sign. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. I understand that there isn't any language in the bill regarding this. This bill is creating a reason for the above mentioned legislation. I reckon you don't agree, but you understand what I'm saying, right? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. The Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, period. Given that, they could already be doing those things. States and local governments have consistently violated more rights in general, including gun rights, than the Feds ever have. Look at gun laws in MA, NYC, CA, Chicago, etc. Why should those citizens get less protection under the Constitution than others. For that matter, why should I be allowed to open carry in Georgia while you can't do that in Texas? Any and all gun laws are a Federal issue. The Bill of Rights makes this so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? |
|
Quoted:
Since the House passed National CCW today and we know the scum bags dems in the Senate will never pass it does anyone know how long the Bill can hang in limbo? In other words can we keep this alive long enough to capture the Senate and White House? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68541.html A bill's life is measured in legislative terms, or the time from one Congressional election to another (well, actually, from one swearing in to the next) . . . that would be two years. So, no, by the time we have a new Senate and president this will have expired if not passed. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. The Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, period. Given that, they could already be doing those things. States and local governments have consistently violated more rights in general, including gun rights, than the Feds ever have. Look at gun laws in MA, NYC, CA, Chicago, etc. Why should those citizens get less protection under the Constitution than others. For that matter, why should I be allowed to open carry in Georgia while you can't do that in Texas? Any and all gun laws are a Federal issue. The Bill of Rights makes this so. Why should any law abiding man of sound mind and body not be able to open carry? "Shall not be infringed." I'll say again, they need to be repealing old gun laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. I understand that there isn't any language in the bill regarding this. This bill is creating a reason for the above mentioned legislation. I reckon you don't agree, but you understand what I'm saying, right? No. Take a basic civics course. This bill doesn't "create a reason" in any way, for any of that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? Last year. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? One occasion in 2009. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. I understand that there isn't any language in the bill regarding this. This bill is creating a reason for the above mentioned legislation. I reckon you don't agree, but you understand what I'm saying, right? No. Take a basic civics course. This bill doesn't "create a reason" in any way, for any of that. Right. You are being intentionally obtuse. It's cute, but we're not getting much done, so with respect, I will bow out of this discussion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. The Second Amendment makes it a Federal issue, period. Given that, they could already be doing those things. States and local governments have consistently violated more rights in general, including gun rights, than the Feds ever have. Look at gun laws in MA, NYC, CA, Chicago, etc. Why should those citizens get less protection under the Constitution than others. For that matter, why should I be allowed to open carry in Georgia while you can't do that in Texas? Any and all gun laws are a Federal issue. The Bill of Rights makes this so. Why should any law abiding man of sound mind and body not be able to open carry? "Shall not be infringed." I'll say again, they need to be repealing old gun laws. You just made my point. It is your STATE that is keeping you from open carrying. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? Last year. It passed the Senate? Well, color me shocked. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. I understand that there isn't any language in the bill regarding this. This bill is creating a reason for the above mentioned legislation. I reckon you don't agree, but you understand what I'm saying, right? No. Take a basic civics course. This bill doesn't "create a reason" in any way, for any of that. Right. You are being intentionally obtuse. It's cute, but we're not getting much done, so with respect, I will bow out of this discussion. I'm not being obtuse, you need to learn how the legislative process works, as you evidently have no idea. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
WTF are you talking about?
Ultra vires. This legislation is shit. State rights It is bad law, but the 10th amendment is dead. I would vote for it. Its not a 10th amendment issue, as the 2nd amendment is enumerated in the bill of rights and is an individual right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? Last year. It passed the Senate? Well, color me shocked. Oh, I misread –– sorry. It missed passage by two votes. We picked up quite a bit more seats than that in the 2010 election. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This. I think its going to pass senate and 70/30 The silver tounged devil signs it I would like to have some of whatever it is you two are smoking. What part of that is so farfetched? You are kidding, right? It gets through the Senate????????????? Obama signs it?????????????????????? I would call either or both of those way farfetched. This bill has passed the Senate multiple times recently, and the GOP picked up some seats in the last offyear election. Less probable is Obama's approval, but it's still not a foregone conclusion, either. Remember, there are a lot of Democrat gun owners out there. When did this bill pass the Senate when it had such an overwhelming Dem majority? Last year. It passed the Senate? Well, color me shocked. The Senate has been relatively pro-gun for a good while now. Gun control is a non-starter on the national level. It really only loses votes, and the only places it gets much foothold is large, primarily urban areas. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Just a set up for the fedgov to take more control over gun regs. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't this the national receprocity bill? How is that setting up the fed gov to take control of anything. All it does is require other states to honor any states CCP. How is this different than being allowed to drive in PA with a NY drivers license? It's not, stop using sound logic, it fucks up GD. It doesn't matter that it would take a whole different bill to do anything else, just like it would without this bill being law. How dare the fed govt pass a law saying that states can not infringe on the right to keep and bare arms of non-residents if they allow some of their residents to walk around armed. The cynic in me says it's setting precedent for the government to pass more gun laws. If everyone has to recognize the federal law then there should be some uniformity to requirements, right? Personally, I think more localized authority is better. They need to repeal old gun laws instead of making more. The government does not need a precedence to pass laws and the states, much less "localized authority" have no business making gun laws of any kind. For an anti-gunner the logical next step would be to attempt to create a federal standard with possible associated unknown fees or requirements for concealed carry and possibly preventing or discouraging the issuing of CCW permits to those who would otherwise have been eligible for one. This is my fear. If you disagree, then you have more faith in our congress critters than I do, but I hope you're right. There is no "next step". This bill does not enable anything. No federal standard, no unknown fees, no requirements. IT ISN'T THERE. You could write the bill that does all that, whether or not this passes. This bill has no relevance in that discussion. I understand that there isn't any language in the bill regarding this. This bill is creating a reason for the above mentioned legislation. I reckon you don't agree, but you understand what I'm saying, right? No. Take a basic civics course. This bill doesn't "create a reason" in any way, for any of that. Right. You are being intentionally obtuse. It's cute, but we're not getting much done, so with respect, I will bow out of this discussion. What? You claim this bill is going to create all these doom and gloom scenarios (even after passing through the House with no anti-gun amendments), can provide no actual fact to back up the claims you make, and he's the one being obtuse? Bass-ackwards |
|
Holy shit did I just stumble into the twilight zone, sorry , out of here if i can
|
|
Quoted: O I CQuoted: Quoted: WTF are you talking about?Ultra vires. This legislation is shit. Do a search for threads started by that poster. Enjoy. (Oh I See) |
|
Quoted: Quoted: i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This will have a poison pill AWB attached to it before it gets signed, and it absolutely *WILL* have a new AWB on it. BET ON IT. This is *NOT* A good thing folks. There's a Feinstein and Shumer dying for this bill to make it to the Senate. ETA: And the Republicans will vote for it even if it's got a new non expiring AWB on it. They should have fucking waited until *AFTER* the election before they opened this can of worms. This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! BS there will not be a new AWB |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
i think it will pass the senate. but i think its a toss up if Zero signs it. This will have a poison pill AWB attached to it before it gets signed, and it absolutely *WILL* have a new AWB on it. BET ON IT. This is *NOT* A good thing folks. There's a Feinstein and Shumer dying for this bill to make it to the Senate. ETA: And the Republicans will vote for it even if it's got a new non expiring AWB on it. They should have fucking waited until *AFTER* the election before they opened this can of worms. This is BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD! It just passed the house with ZERO amendments. If the Senate adds something bad to it, the house will kill it. But we have a pro-gun majority leader in the Senate, and this has been passed in the Senate before. It's not "bad", and if it comes to a silly scenario like you're claiming, it will simply be killed. You do realize, do you not, that even the dems won't vote for an AWB, right? Out side of a couple of ideological morons, gun control is dead. Check your facts....I think they did add one amendment......if you have one fact wrong..what else do you have wrong? Or you can check your facts. I've been through everything I can find, and everything says no amendments. So please cite if there's something else. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-112hrpt277/pdf/CRPT-112hrpt277.pdf There is your fact cited..page one it has one amendment....not zero. |
|
Quoted:
Under the radar gun control is somewhere being worked on. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile For all we know this legislation could open the door for more stringent laws on who can own and carry. Has anyone even read this bill? |
|
Quoted:
I'm REALLY hoping it doeesn't pass the senate. FUCK THAT. The above. I don't want to hear any of you guys blame it on cops is the reason why you can't national carry. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.