Federal reciprocity added to the background check bill?

[silencertalk]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04 ... oss-state/

Would you vote for background checks on private sales if you got federal carry reciprocity?

[ronin111]

I would love to have reciprocity but I could not agree to more gun control.

Federal reciprocity should be constitutional carry without any permit.

[silencertalk]

Federal reciprocity should be constitutional carry without any permit.

And that may happen in 30-40 years. But I want to be able to carry in any state while I can still walk.

What we should have is to kill the 1968 CGA, and kill the FFL concept, and have mail order gun sales, including NFA, to anyone, provided they have an instant check which is no harder than buying an airline ticket. Sort of like a "no fly list."

[ronin111]

I just skimmed through the proposal and I cannot find any mention of reciprocity. Maybe there's a new version or I missed it.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/152165893/P ... ection-Act

On page 22 it appears that a 4473 would not need to be completed if the buyer has a permit that is less than 5 years old.

[ronin111]

A little easier to read or search this.
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968

[Libertarian_Geek]

Federal reciprocity should be constitutional carry without any permit.

And that may happen in 30-40 years. But I want to be able to carry in any state while I can still walk.

What we should have is to kill the 1968 CGA, and kill the FFL concept, and have mail order gun sales, including NFA, to anyone, provided they have an instant check which is no harder than buying an airline ticket. Sort of like a "no fly list."

You probably didn't mean it this way, but the "no fly list" is a terrible model for anything, even as a "no fly list".
You should not be deprived of rights without due process. Period.

With that said, a due-process "dangerous persons" list has a place to prevent people from buying weapons, going to schools, getting on airplanes, etc. But It's much more sensible to refer to those people as inmates.

[doubloon]

... But It's much more sensible to refer to those people as escaped inmates.

Precisely.

[700PSS]

I read abut the reciprocity provision, but heard it was shot down from beig included in the legislation.

[johndoe3]

Robert, I agree with you in concept that National Concealed Carry recognition is important, and might be worth the tradeoff. Alan Gottlieb of the CCRKBA came out today and endorsed the Toomey-Manchin amendment. He said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/j ... html?hp=l3

“If you read the Manchin-Toomey substitute amendment, you can see all the advances for our cause that it contains like interstate sales of handguns, veteran gun rights restoration, travel with firearms protection civil and criminal immunity lawsuit protection, and most important of all, the guarantee that people, including federal officers, will go to federal prison for up to 15 years if they attempt to use any gun sales records to set up a gun registry,” said the chairman of the group, Allan Gottlieb, in a statement.

So, initially the tradeoff idea would have merit, if at a minimum it gave us an unencumbered National Concealed Carry permit recognition by all States.

That said, there are hidden bombshells in the Toomey-Manchin amendment due to deliberate language inserted by Manchin and his staff; and Toomey and his staff aren't smart enough to have caught them.

A lawyer (W.M.) read and evaluated the Toomey-Manchin amendment entirely, and wrote about some of the problems in the language on the Monday posting for Survivalblog.com, titled: Letter Re: Weasel Words in Pending Federal Gun Legislation

http://www.survivalblog.com/2013/04/let ... ation.html

I read the text of the draft Toomey-Manchin-Schumer Amendment. It does not define the word "publication." Because there are several common definitions of the word, including the transitive verb ,"publish" could include just telling two or more people at once that you have a gun for sale.

Also the "safe travel" provision does not include magazines, so if you are stopped in New York or Connecticut or Maryland with a 30 round mag while driving from Pennsylvania to New Hampshire (for example) then you are a felon. Also NY SAFE act bans transport of Guns AND Ammo, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer Amendment only protects transport Guns OR Ammo, it may seem a small distinction, but as an attorney I can tell you it does matter. If under the SAFE act you are stopped traveling through, with an AR-15 and some ammo, both locked in your trunk, you are not protected by McClure-Volkmer. Regards, - W.M.

Since Manchin and his staff inserted (OR) instead of (and) at Section 128(a), a traveler passing through NY would only be protected by McClure-Volkmer for guns, but not for the ammo or larger capacity magazines they may have in their trunk while transiting NY to or from the New England states. That's going to mean arrests and felony charges galore for gunowners courtesy the NY police. There may be other deliberate landmines in the Toomey-Manchin amendment (like Section 125, which establishes the system for employers to do a NICS check on all employees or potential employees--if I read this correctly). Why would we use the NICS system for non-gun purchases, to discriminate against employees?

A correctly written law would protect the traveler for guns, ammo, AND magazines (Section 128) locked in their trunk while passing through another state.

[700PSS]

Reminds me of 1986. We gave up any new machine guns and were told we could drive around the country with unloaded, encased, inaccessible guns and not get convicted anymore. How's that working out for ya' in the NE?

[doubloon]

Reminds me of 1986. ...

Giving up even a little at a time is still LOSING!

[silencertalk]

Perhaps.

But I would contend banning MGs is unconstitutional but requiring a background check is not. Then again, a $30 background check probably is unconstitutional. It needs to be free.

[silencertalk]

Reminds me of 1986. ...

Giving up even a little at a time is still LOSING!

Not if you get something huge in return. Federal reciprocity is huge.

[acg1911]

Reminds me of 1986. ...

Giving up even a little at a time is still LOSING!

Not if you get something huge in return. Federal reciprocity is huge.

If you or I (maybe even Dubloon) were king, I would agree that trading background checks for CCW would be a good trade. Most people on this forum voluntarily participate in Federal registration , fingerprinting and CLEO scrutiny. Universal checks seem benign compared to our Class III stuff. But.....

My concern is this: If the Fed has the power to trump State law by granting Federal CCW reciprocity, then they can later trump State law by saying no more carry at all. They, of course, would use terrorism or some other reason to justify it.

I must admit that I have not read the bill yet.

[Libertarian_Geek]

If I win a $10,000 shopping spree, is it really a win if the rules state that I have to give copies of my house keys, alarm codes and home inventory to the companies involved in the sweepstakes?

[silencertalk]

Anyway it is clear that basically no one wants this trade.

Maybe if the trade were much bigger - like we got national carry, the end of the FFL system (so that anyone could buy a gun mail order), and the elimination of the FET on guns and ammunition.

[robpiat]

My disgust with the universal background check is that it will only impact people who are not the issue. Gray/Black market FTF transfers will go on undetected. The only way to maybe address this is universal registration.

A different but related question....

Is there anybody that is unfit to own a gun that should be free to roam the streets? In a perfect world, is there an offense/condition that should preclude you from owning a gun that DOESN'T make you unfit to drive, buy gasoline, handle knives?

[CThomas]

The real question is would this federal reciprocity supersede any and all state restrictions. Some states are not shall issue states, they make you prove you need to carry while others add restrictions to permits like home use and target/hunting carry only.

If the law would not dispense with state restrictions it would be a false carrot that many would never be able to reach.

[acg1911]

The real question is would this federal reciprocity supersede any and all state restrictions. Some states are not shall issue states, they make you prove you need to carry while others add restrictions to permits like home use and target/hunting carry only.

If the law would not dispense with state restrictions it would be a false carrot that many would never be able to reach.

In the case of states like California and NY, dispensing with state restrictions would be an improvement. For now, anyway. The problem is, by allowing the Fed to do this, a situation is created where they could eventually dispense with state law that allows carry. If the Fed giveth, the Fed can taketh away.

If the Fed had the power to set states' speed limits to 80mph today, they may decide to lower it to 40mph tomorrow. Constitutionality could be argued for/against either scenario, but I don't think there are any legislators that read the Constitution.

[johndoe3]

The real question is would this federal reciprocity supersede any and all state restrictions. Some states are not shall issue states, they make you prove you need to carry while others add restrictions to permits like home use and target/hunting carry only.

If the law would not dispense with state restrictions it would be a false carrot that many would never be able to reach.

There were two National CCW Reciprocity bills before Congress in 2012. The House overwhelmingly passed it, and in the Senate there was argument between the two bills. The difference between the bills was merely how to handle Constitutional Carry States where a person there did not take the extra step to get a permit. In the end, Senator Reid killed both bills by being Majority leader and not bringing either bill to the floor, even though NRA and GOA said there were about 55 votes for the issue in the Senate. Those 2012 proposed bills merely said that States must recognize CCW permits from all other States. They did not set CCW training standards for the States or dispense with any State restrictions.

A simple National Carry reciprocity bill would be a great benefit. It would be the same as recognition of driver's licenses from all other States. IMHO, if National Carry reciprocity were passed, there would be increased citizen pressure in the restrictive States to issue more CCW permits--a win-win for everyone.

[silencertalk]

I know someone who is schizophrenic and he communicates with George Bush every day. He says that the satellites are reading his brain, possibly controlling it. He lives in a half-way house and so it somewhat looked over. But no, I don't think he should be able to buy a gun. I don't want the voices to tell him to shoot my family.

And then an old college friend just rambled on to me for 30 minutes about how 911 was an inside job and that the building was wired with explosives. He also said that the school shooting was a planned event by FEMA, and pointed out all of the evidence. He said that a small group of people control the world. He likes and owns guns. While this sounds crazy to me, I am not yet convinced that he is medically crazy like the other person, so I would keep him on the threshold to be able to buy a gun.

[silencertalk]

Brady is saying that the bomb is a reason to ban guns:

Each time an incident of mass murder occurs, Americans band together — first in shock, and then afterwards as one unified voice to say: "Enough is enough."

Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of yesterday's Boston Marathon attack. For those of us who have personally experienced gun violence, the feelings of frustration, anger, bewilderment and sorrow caused by this tragedy are all too familiar. 
Sadly, in addition to remembering those lost in Boston, today is the day we also remember 32 Virginia Tech students and faculty who were murdered six years ago in another senseless massacre.
Regardless of whether casualties are caused by knives, guns or bombs, Americans have had enough. We can no longer be a nation that makes it easy for terrorists, criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on the deadly tools that enable mass murder.

[acg1911]

Brady is saying that the bomb is a reason to ban guns:

Each time an incident of mass murder occurs, Americans band together — first in shock, and then afterwards as one unified voice to say: "Enough is enough."

Our heartfelt thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of yesterday's Boston Marathon attack. For those of us who have personally experienced gun violence, the feelings of frustration, anger, bewilderment and sorrow caused by this tragedy are all too familiar. 
Sadly, in addition to remembering those lost in Boston, today is the day we also remember 32 Virginia Tech students and faculty who were murdered six years ago in another senseless massacre.
Regardless of whether casualties are caused by knives, guns or bombs, Americans have had enough. We can no longer be a nation that makes it easy for terrorists, criminals and other dangerous people to get their hands on the deadly tools that enable mass murder.

Early reports from Boston suggest that a ban on high capacity pressure cookers might be in order. My wife's pressure canner soon to be NFA?

[doubloon]

... If the Fed has the power ...

This is the crux of my concern, the Fed already has more power than it needs. And as far as reciprocity goes I have, more recently than I would like to admit, come to believe, as many already do, that the right to carry is already guaranteed by 2A but is simply written in a dead language which is being, probably purposely, misinterpreted.

I don't think we should be satisfied with trading for something that should already be ours and made to feel like we won something.

[sniper1]

I would trade background checks for the revocation of the Hughes Amendment along with Nationwide Open Carry. Anything short of that, they can go pound sand.