Ohioans For Concealed Carry Discussion Forums

M-Quigley wrote:Any links or examples of some of the most ridiculous arguments against HR38 during the debate?

You can find it on house.gov. I was busy working and didn't tune in until the very end of the debate. I started watching earlier but then things got sidetracked. There was a brief delay during some of the debates when some nutjob made a motion to impeach Trump. That uprising had to be put down first before they could return to business. They didn't start actual debate on HR 38 until about 2:30 but I didn't join until almost 3:15. Nadler was giving closing arguments and it was just a rehash of what he railed about in committee last week.

What's interesting is the debates seem to be before a largely empty chamber. At the end a guy from California proposed an amendment to not have it apply if the person had been convicted of a violent offense in the last three years. 15 minutes was alloted for the vote and when they panned out to show the tabulation in progress there was nobody there. It took a good 10 minutes before there were more than a handful of votes on the board and then the members all swarmed in like cockroaches and stood around on the floor BSing. Once the amendment failed five minutes was alloted for the actual vote on the bill. That went fairly quickly but still the House members were all standing around like they were at a cocktail party. I'm not even really sure how they actually register their vote.

FYI HR38 Reciproity was merged with FixNICS to tally the final vote.

Feinstein & Schumer actually wanting Fix NICS to go through...HINT: ergo, NOT a good idea.

These 2 are for it & no body figured out the end game?? Seriously? ITS A TRICK

LoL

WhyNot wrote:FYI HR38 Reciproity was merged with FixNICS to tally the final vote.

Feinstein & Schumer actually wanting Fix NICS to go through...HINT: ergo, NOT a good idea.

These 2 are for it & no body figured out the end game?? Seriously? ITS A TRICK

Feinstein and Schumer have had many years to refine the art of deception. They are masters of the art. I for one support the term limits for legislators. The states have it, why not the Feds.

qmti wrote:I for one support the term limits for legislators. The states have it, why not the Feds.

Marginally. In practice what we get in Columbus is musical chairs. Rep this year, Senator next few, then back to the House with maybe a county commissioner stint in between. All along the way there are certain pieces of institutional knowledge that get lost every two years and must be relearned.

Not saying I oppose term limits but they aren't the panacea many believe them to be.

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.

Here we go...being too smart for straight up or down votes...

It's my understanding that residents of states with Constitutional Carry laws would have carry rights in all 50, is this true?

dustymedic wrote:It's my understanding that residents of states with Constitutional Carry laws would have carry rights in all 50, is this true?

Yes, with valid photo ID from their home state.

dustymedic wrote:It's my understanding that residents of states with Constitutional Carry laws would have carry rights in all 50, is this true?

Yes. Those who can legally carry in their home state, whether it's through a license/permit/etc. or because the state has Constitutional Carry where all those who can legally own a firearm may carry concealed, would be able to legally carry concealed in any state that allows concealed carry in some form with the person having to follow that state's laws on carrying concealed.

That may be what kills it. i can't see NJ, NY, or Ca allowing people to come into their state carrying that have never had a background check....

dustymedic wrote:That may be what kills it. i can't see NJ, NY, or Ca allowing people to come into their state carrying that have never had a background check....

Or even carriers who have had background checks.

For those that haven't seen it I suggest you read this:
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know

schmieg wrote:

dustymedic wrote:That may be what kills it. i can't see NJ, NY, or Ca allowing people to come into their state carrying that have never had a background check....

Or even carriers who have had background checks.

Well, this explains the statements I've heard on the news from opponents who claimed that someone could carry in their state without a background check. I thought reciprocity was referring to licensed carry. Although states may have different training requirements or none at all, I'm not aware of any place that issues a gun related license without a background check.

AlanM wrote:For those that haven't seen it I suggest you read this:
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know

Thanks for the link Alan, great post as usual.