The anti-gun Left doesn’t just hate your guns; they hate you. They actually want to see you get hurt. How else can you explain why they’re standing against laws that would protect your hearing?
The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 will indeed apply to non-resident permits. The bill’s author, Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.), stated that this is his legislative intent. “My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson told the Washington Free Beacon.
Thus, residents of Los Angeles and other parts of California will enjoy the same liberties as those living in Free America. A Utah non-resident permit, for example, would be valid here in LaLaLand where no permits are issued. Ever!
Bill Would Eliminate Confusing Patchwork of State Laws
Fairfax, Va. – On behalf of its five-million members, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded the introduction of H.R. 38, The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, authored by Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-8). This legislation would eliminate the confusing patchwork of state carry laws by allowing individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.
“The current patchwork of state and local laws is confusing for even the most conscientious and well-informed concealed carry permit holders. This confusion often leads to law-abiding gun owners running afoul of the law when they exercise their right to self-protection while traveling or temporarily living away from home,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA. “Congressman Hudson’s legislation provides a much needed solution to a real problem for law-abiding gun owners.”
This legislation would not override state laws governing the time, place or manner of carriage or establish national standards for concealed carry. Individual state gun laws would still be respected. If under federal law a person is prohibited from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under this bill.
“Law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while traveling across state lines,” continued Cox. “This is an extremely important issue to our members and we thank Congressman Hudson for leading the fight to protect our rights,” concluded Cox.
The little man who just can’t handle the word “NO” had himself a nice tantrum in the rose garden today…
Over at Breitbart, Joel Pollak observed…
Ironically, while accusing others of lying, President Obama resorted to false claims and statistics about current laws, including the repeatedly debunked argument that 40% of gun sales are private, and that guns can be bought over the Internet without background checks. It was partly the dishonesty of those very arguments that had led potential supporters of new bipartisan legislation to doubt the administration’s motives in supporting the bill.
The administration’s defeat came earlier Wednesday, when the Senate failed to pass a cloture motion to end debate on a bipartisan proposal introduced by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA). Only 54 votes of the necessary 60 votes could be found to support an expanded federal background check system (among other changes), partly because of fears that extending such checks would require the creation of a federal gun registry that could lead to confiscation.
Related to the Toddler-in-Chief’s tirade, is this analysis from David Kopel of what the real effects of Toomey-Manchin would have been. Under current law, a national gun registry would be illegal. Under Toomey-Manchin, only the Attorney General would be barred from starting or maintaining a gun or gun owner registry. Every other Federal agency would be allowed to compile gun and gun owner registries. Furthermore, under Toomey-Manchin, the BATFE would have been allowed to start assembling a gun and gun owner database from the collection of 4473 forms they possess that were surrendered by FFLs that went out of business or retired. Current law prevents this, but under Toomey-Manchin, only data from current FFLs is protected; not the old data that’s now the property of the BATFE. Under current Federal law, oppressive States like New York or Connecticut are not allowed to harass law abiding gun owners who transit those States while travelling. Under Toomey-Manchin, that protection would have been ended. Taking a gun into those States without an impossible-to-get gun permit would land you in jail.
Statement from Chris W. Cox on U.S. Senate Defeat of Manchin-Toomey-Schumer Amendment
|Posted on April 17, 2013|
|Today, the misguided Manchin-Toomey-Schumer proposal failed in the U.S. Senate. This amendment would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms between honest citizens, requiring lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission to exercise a fundamental right or face prosecution. As we have noted previously, expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.The NRA will continue to work with Republicans and Democrats who are committed to protecting our children in schools, prosecuting violent criminals to the fullest extent of the law, and fixing our broken mental health system. We are grateful for the hard work and leadership of those Senators who chose to pursue meaningful solutions to our nation’s most pressing problems.|
You ever hear that joke about the bear hunter?
From the LA Times…
WASHINGTON — In a final appeal to her colleagues to reinstate an assault weapons ban, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) displayed on the Senate floor Wednesday a New York Daily News front page from the day after her ban was pulled from a broader gun control bill: It shows the photos of the 20 first-graders shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary Schoolwith the headline: “Shame on U.S.”
And then, Feinstein told her colleagues, “Show some guts.”
But her attempt to attach the ban to the gun bill failed, drawing just 40 votes, with 60 senators voting against it.
That was fewer than the 52 votes she received in 2004 in her unsuccessful effort to renew the now-lapsed 1994 ban.
Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, is predicting that his expanded background checks amendment will go down in flames today. The amendment, penned with former conservative Sen. Pat “Why are you calling me Arlen” Toomey, R-PA, doesn’t look like it can muster the 60 votes it will need to stop a filibuster in the Senate.
Senator Ted Cruz: Background Check Goal a ‘Federal List of Every Gun Owner in America’
They’re crying in their half-caf soy lattes over at the Washington Post.
WaPo’s Tom Hamburger laments the latest failed attempt to use a tragedy to pass gun control legislation that was in the works long before said tragedy hit the news wires…
The NRA’s recent successes on Capitol Hill — as well as a string of victories in state legislatures across the country — demonstrate the effectiveness of the group’s strategy to overcome a post-Newtown tilt toward gun control. The organization has drafted and circulated legislation, mobilized its members and continued to put pressure on politically vulnerable lawmakers. At the same time, groups attempting to promote stricter gun- control measures have faltered.
New restrictions that a couple of months ago seemed possible, even likely, such as bans on assault weapons and universal background checks on gun purchases, are now in doubt.
WaPo titled this piece “NRA tactics erode post-Newtown support for gun-control measures”. But the truth is that there never was support for the actual proposals anti-gun extremists wanted. When pollsters ask “Do you favor background checks on gun sales?”, most people will answer yes. When asked if the Federal Government should keep the records of those sales in a massive database, the support falters. When asked if “sale” should include lending a deer rifle to a buddy so he can go hunting this weekend, support falls even further. (Such a “transfer” would be illegal unless you were standing beside him throughout the entire weekend.) There is support for “gun control” in the abstract, but this support drifts away like smoke when people are confronted with the realities of what anti-gun extremists really want. What they want is a total ban on all firearms. That doesn’t get support in the polls.
Pity poor Harry Reid.
After events like Aurora and Newtown, new gun control laws seemed like a slam dunk; even for a President who can’t make a basket without a ladder and someone to help put the ball through the hoop. But Nevada Senator and Senate majority leader Harry Reid stood in the way. Firstly because he’s a genuine friend to gun owners. But also because he’s got to get a bunch of Red State Democrats re-elected if he wants to keep his current job. New gun laws would be a perfect way for him to become the minority leader. So as a result, he’s got his own party bashing him for getting in their way. Never mind that he’s the one standing between the crazies like Dianne Feinstein and their re-election chances.
Enter the ACLU.
The ACLU, who usually look the other way when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, are calling the Senate’s anti-gun bill “Reid’s gun bill”. And they don’t like “Reid’s gun bill”. The reason? The “universal” background check provision smells too much like a federal gun registry. This has set off the privacy alarm bells at 125 Broad Street…
“[U]nfortunately, we have seen in the past that the creation of these types of records leads sometimes to the creation of government databases and collections of personal information on all of us,” [ACLU privacy lobbyist Chris] Calabrese warned. “That’s not an inevitable result, but we have seen that happen in the past, certainly.”
“As we’ve seen with many large government databases, if you build it, they will come.”
They must also subscribe to the opinion that data never dies. Though, I get the impression that they don’t realize just how bad Chucky Schumer’s bill really is. They fret that the gun owner data might not be destroyed in 24 hours. What they don’t seem to realize is that Schumer’s bill requires that it be kept. Permanently.