There could be bad news on this front: there is a move afoot to link HR38 with a bill in the Senate (4477) nicknamed the Feinstein-Schumer bill, that would put the power to add people to the NICS list in the hands of an administrative body. It is loosely called the "fix-nics" bill, and it would be a disaster. Please let your senators know you strongly oppose 4477 and would like him to vote against it.
UPDATE--House Passes HR 38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017
- Thread starter hoz53
- Start date
House Republicans fast tracked 4477 through last week. There is only one vote, and it will be for the combined bill. The House has HR 38 and the Senate has 4477. Congressman Thomas Massie (Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus) blew the whistle on the "swamp". The House bill is identical to the Senate bill, with the addition of a commission to study bump-stocks included in the House version.
Last edited:
I see that when it comes out on pay per view....maybe.If Comifornia ever gets on board with this -- I'll paint myself pink and march in the Doo Dah parade. jd
4477 is the house version of fix-nicks. S.2135 is the similar senate bill. I read both and I don't see the disaster you are describing. I read it as an attempt to force government agencies to report felons and domestic abuse disqualifying events to the NICS system. Both look widely bipartisan and I see no place any talk of giving added authorities or discretion to deny someone.
The reciprocity bill is VERY important to us that live on the borders of unfriendly gun states. If I forget and drive a mile in the wrong direction I could be charged with multiple felonies. Unlawful possession, large capacity feeding device and interstate gun trafficking. If they want 4477 or 2135 to get it done, I'm good with it.
Below is the bump stock requirement:
(a) In General.—Within 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Bureau of Justice Statistics shall prepare and submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate a written report that specifies the number of times that a bump stock has been used in the commission of a crime in the United States.
(b) Definition Of Bump Stock.—In this section, the term “bump stock” means a device that—
(1) attaches to a semiautomatic rifle (as defined in section 921(a)(28) of title 18, United States Code);
(2) is designed and intended to repeatedly activate the trigger without the deliberate and volitional act of the user pulling the trigger each time the firearm is fired; and
(3) functions by continuous forward pressure applied to the rifle’s fore end in conjunction with a linear forward and backward sliding motion of the mechanism utilizing the recoil energy when the rifle is discharged.
thanks for the updates guys
Well, I would bet that bump stocks have been used in about as many crimes as silencers/suppressors. Given that, there would be no reason to outlaw bump stocks. I don't have/want one but if you do I have no problem with that. Have friends that have them, I just prefer more accurate fire.
One of the nice things about a national reciprocity bill is that we would no longer have to be concerned with restrictive state and local laws as the federal law would trump those.
One of the nice things about a national reciprocity bill is that we would no longer have to be concerned with restrictive state and local laws as the federal law would trump those.
We would still have to comply with State, City, County and municipality laws. Our CCW would be like a drivers license. Good in all states, but not unrestricted.
bump for a good cause
Steve,
That"s not the way I read or understood the bill, in order for the CCW to be eligible for reciprocity your State of Residence must issue you a CCW. Getting one in NJ is next to impossible so even if the bill passes (I currently have a non-resident CCW issued through Florida, and the same from South Carolina) my current CCW will not be recognized by NJ or the rest of the States that do not currently honor my CCW. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I remember reading that your State of Residence takes precedence. :-(
house passes hr38
carlsbad
Lions don't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep.
Is this true? Right now lots of CA gun owners have CCW permits in other states. Is there a provision in this bill prevents that from working? Doesn't seem fair that Arizona tourists can carry in my town but I can't get an Arizona CCW permit and carry. There are lots of states that give CCW permits to non-residents.
--Jerry
Pheasanthunter
Gold $$ Contributor
The way I read one of the stipulations is a individual must be issued or eligible to be issued a concealed carry permit in his or her state of residence
My understanding of how they work...#2 would be wrong. The stock does NOT activate the trigger, the shooter does.
This is bad law and a slippery slope. I hope it gets scuttled in the Senate.
Edit to clarify: we do not want the Federal Government also infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There should be no such thing as a permit to carry arms and every concealed weapon permit is a trampling of your rights. This just legitimizes the usurping of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms more.
Edit to clarify: we do not want the Federal Government also infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. There should be no such thing as a permit to carry arms and every concealed weapon permit is a trampling of your rights. This just legitimizes the usurping of your constitutional right to keep and bear arms more.
Last edited:
As long as 4477 is included in the bill, it's just about a done deal in the Senate. This could easily turn into a national registry, or something similar to the Real ID Act, which raises privacy concerns. There would have to be some type of data base for law enforcement to use to be able to verify the CCW permits, and it would have to be accessible nationwide. Much like verifying a drivers license.
Be careful what you ask for. The "swamp" is desperate to pass bills, at any cost.
Last edited:
I still like the idea of a Federal reciprocity law. No, we should not be required to have permits to carry concealed. The fact of the matter is that we do have to live with permits. Not all states are going to make concealed carry without a permit legal. With Federal reciprocity, I can go to NY or NJ which are two states that I will not visit now. Here in Alabama, open carry is legal, no permit required. Once you get in your vehicle, that weapon is deemed to be concealed, permit required. I have permit, carry concealed or open as the weather and dress dictates.
rkittine
Gold $$ Contributor
I do not know about Maryland and I agree about New Jersey, but except for three counties in New York, getting a concealed carry permit only takes time, usually 5 months by state mandate to be exact. Even in two of those three counties where they issue what the County (not the state) does not considered full concealed carry (sportsman), they are full carry in all the other counties but one, which covers New York City.
Bob
Bob
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.