US House of Representatives passes bill loosening gun restrictions - Polidicks

[quote]The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday loosening gun regulations and [B]allowing those with permits to carry concealed weapons to legally travel with those firearms to other states, a top priority of the National Rifle Association.[/B] The bill passed mostly along party lines, [B]231-198, with six Democrats supporting it.[/B] Fourteen Republicans opposed the legislation, the first major firearms-related bill Congress has voted on since the massacres in Las Vegas and Texas earlier this year. Republicans argued that Americans' Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not end when they cross state lines. "The Bill of Rights is not a philosophical exercise," Georgia GOP Rep. Doug Collins, who personally had a concealed carry permit for what described as self-defense reasons. "I don't think that right should be undermined simply because I travel to another state."[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html[/url]

[QUOTE]Many Democrats were also incensed that the bill was merged with two other measures with bipartisan support. One would fill in holes in the National Criminal Instant Background Check system (NCIS) that were highlighted after a mass shooting at a Texas church last month, in which the gunman, a former Air Force member, was able to buy guns even though he had a criminal record that the military failed to report to the database. The other would direct the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study all crimes involving firearms and report back to Congress in six months about how many involved weapons with "bump fire stocks," accessories that can allow semi-automatic weapons guns to fire at a rate similar automatic ones. The shooter responsible for killing 58 people and injuring nearly 500 more attending a Las Vegas concert in October used bump stocks to direct large amounts of ammunition on the crowd, and members from both parties have called for ban on them.[/QUOTE] It's probably not going to pass the Senate but for future reference, this is what compromise actually looks like. Pro-gun lobby gets concealed carry reciprocity, anti-gun lobby gets NICS funding and bump stock research.

More or less the way it should be for the most part. There aren't many gun owners who would argue against a more responsive NICS check. I don't mind researching how many crimes use a bump stock either, because I'm almost positive the number is extremely low, if even present. Hopefully it gets somewhere. The NRA has to generate some good will after flipping on the bump stock fiasco anyways, so one can hope they throw a significant amount of their weight behind it.

I think it's a good idea. Every state recognizes every state's driver's license, why not a conceal carry? If they aren't living there permanently but are out of state it should be recognized

Good. As I said before you need an encyclopedia to figure out which states honor which permits, and even then it is sometimes nonsensical.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52953538]More or less the way it should be for the most part. There aren't many gun owners who would argue against a more responsive NICS check. I don't mind researching how many crimes use a bump stock either, because I'm almost positive the number is extremely low, if even present. Hopefully it gets somewhere. The NRA has to generate some good will after flipping on the bump stock fiasco anyways, so one can hope they throw a significant amount of their weight behind it.[/QUOTE] A lot of non-NRA backed organisations oppose the NICS half of the legislation due to the wording. Some of it is kind of vague, such as using the words "mentally deficient" which could be interpreted as things such as anxiety. Personally I'm for the a lot of it, as it forces the states to actually comply with the brady bill and report things such as domestic violence and forceful institutionalization to NICS(something they were already supposed to be doing, but now have a budget increase reason to do). I do wish the wording would be less vague however, as leaving things up to interpretation means people are going to take things to the extreme.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52953530]It's probably not going to pass the Senate but for future reference, this is what compromise actually looks like. Pro-gun lobby gets concealed carry reciprocity, anti-gun lobby gets NICS funding and bump stock research.[/QUOTE] 52 republicans to 48 Dems/Independents. I suspect it will.

[QUOTE=download;52953654]52 republicans to 48 Dems/Independents. I suspect it will.[/QUOTE] From the article: [quote]Hastings predicted the measure was "going nowhere" in the Senate, where Republicans control the chamber [B]but would need backing from eight Democrats to avoid a filibuster. [/B] Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the number two Senate GOP Leader, said on Monday that [B]merging the gun bills complicated the path forward in the Senate[/B] and suggested splitting off the background check fix. He has a bipartisan bill on that issue with Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy. "I support both of those bills but I recognize that[B] if you combine them it makes it a lot harder to pass the consensus bill[/B] which is the fix NICS bill," Cornyn said. "And I think it's important enough that we ought to handle those sequentially, would be my advice."[/quote]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52953678]From the article:[/QUOTE] Ah yes, the Filibuster. I do forget that sometimes.

I hope the Democrats don't fuck this, but they probably will because they hate gun owners.

I'm waiting for the Democrats to spoil this like they did with the Firearms Owner Protection Act. Seriously, why can we not just have nice things?

[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52954107]nice things?[/QUOTE] Don't you mean evil autonomous assault shoulder things that go up?

[QUOTE=download;52953654]52 republicans to 48 Dems/Independents. I suspect it will.[/QUOTE] The Senate can't just use reconciliation for everything to bypass the filibuster and pass everything with only 52 votes. Republicans seemingly would LOVE to just be able to pass whatever they want with no opposition at all, but that's not allowed in the Senate. They used their one shot at reconciliation on the tax bill that now has to go to committee to reconcile it and the House version. I would prefer Democrats in the Senate hold this bill hostage and use it to demand a return towards sanity, because from the way things are looking, that sure as shit is not in the GOP's plans - they want to elect an alleged pedophile to the Senate. But I doubt the Dems will play hardball, they'll let themselves get walked over while they protest as always.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;52953544]I think it's a good idea. Every state recognizes every state's driver's license, why not a conceal carry? If they aren't living there permanently but are out of state it should be recognized[/QUOTE] I think the legal idea behind the full faith and credit clause is that if two states agree on the definition or existence of a license or legal document, then one state has to honor the criteria for granting an individual that license. However, if the two states have radically different definitions of what that license constitutes, or one state doesn't even recognize the institution that license represents, then the full faith and credit clause is null. For example, if Massachusetts gave a marriage license to two men, Alabama wouldn't have to honor it because it doesn't recognize a union between two men as a "marriage". By Alabama's definition, a marriage is between a man and a woman, and the criteria for granting a license has to be within those parameters. Similarly, maybe a hunting license in Montana is different from a hunting license in Virginia. Whereas the criteria for granting a hunting license may be similar in Montana as it is in Virginia, the actual terms of the license will vary radically because of the different kind of wildlife found in the different states. Though gambling is legal in Nevada, you wouldn't expect Utah to recognize a Las Vegas casino owner's license to operate a Casino in Salt Lake City. California doesn't even recognize the institution of Concealed Carry, so it doesn't recognize the criteria that Virginia has determined to grant a CCW permit

Well, and just another reason that this bill makes sense is that it gets rid of weird restrictions for those traveling through states. If one were to go from, say, Illinois to Maine, they would be committing a crime as they drive through the state of New York, and could be prosecuted for it. It’s asinine to allow for such restrictions state-to-state, especially for traveling peoples

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52954561]Well, and just another reason that this bill makes sense is that it gets rid of weird restrictions for those traveling through states. If one were to go from, say, Illinois to Maine, they would be committing a crime as they drive through the state of New York, and could be prosecuted for it. It’s asinine to allow for such restrictions state-to-state, especially for traveling peoples[/QUOTE] I disagree; IMO this should be a matter left up to the states, not congress. The legislature of, say, Texas shouldn't be allowed to pass laws which circumvent laws in California.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;52954561]Well, and just another reason that this bill makes sense is that it gets rid of weird restrictions for those traveling through states. If one were to go from, say, Illinois to Maine, they would be committing a crime as they drive through the state of New York, and could be prosecuted for it. It’s asinine to allow for such restrictions state-to-state, especially for traveling peoples[/QUOTE] If it's locked in a secure box while driving through NY is it a crime? [QUOTE=TheTalon;52953544]I think it's a good idea. Every state recognizes every state's driver's license, why not a conceal carry? If they aren't living there permanently but are out of state it should be recognized[/QUOTE] And many professional licenses and medical licenses are not fully recognized state-by-state. States should form compacts at least, so that it's simpler to go to other conceal carry states without fussing over specifics. It is true, that for those who have conceal-carry licenses that it's a confusing mess on what to do when crossing state lines. But otherwise that's not really an inherent argument to force states to go through with others' delusions that conceal-carry reduces crime rates and doesn't increase lethality of already-existing crimes.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52953809]I hope the Democrats don't fuck this, but they probably will because they hate gun owners.[/QUOTE] Why doesn't the democratic party realize support for them would sky rocket in more rural areas if they didn't fuck with guns? better question: why do democrat politicians despise guns, and the people who love them, for no reason?

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52954667]Why doesn't the democratic party realize support for them would sky rocket in more rural areas if they didn't fuck with guns? better question: why do democrat politicians despise guns for no reason?[/QUOTE] Democratic politicians want guns to be better regulated because conservatives have somehow come to accept that it's okay to have the gun death rate of a 3rd world country.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52954574]I disagree; IMO this should be a matter left up to the states, not congress. The legislature of, say, Texas shouldn't be allowed to pass laws which circumvent laws in California.[/QUOTE] It's literally the purpose of the federal government though to legislate interstate things like this?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52954675]Democratic politicians want guns to be better regulated because conservatives have somehow come to accept that it's okay to have the gun death rate of a 3rd world country.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between better regulation and the frankly retarded "solutions" on guns the democrats are known for supporting, especially in my home state of CA. This better regulation you speak of is nonexistent, it's pure prohibition that is wanted by most democratic lawmakers. [QUOTE=thelurker1234;52954687]Shit like talking about "assault weapons" accomplish nothing and make the party look stupid.[/QUOTE] Also this, complete ignorance on the subject, a total lack of understanding about them.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52954667]Why doesn't the democratic party realize support for them would sky rocket in more rural areas if they didn't fuck with guns? better question: why do democrat politicians despise guns, and the people who love them, for no reason?[/QUOTE] With their other policies, it won't really do much for rural places. It may have a decent independent appeal though, given that most independents in America are centre-right. Although I'd much prefer the dems be fairly anti-gun, but reasonably anti-gun. Shit like talking about "assault weapons" accomplish nothing and make the party look stupid.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;52953538]More or less the way it should be for the most part. There aren't many gun owners who would argue against a more responsive NICS check. I don't mind researching how many crimes use a bump stock either, because I'm almost positive the number is extremely low, if even present. Hopefully it gets somewhere. The NRA has to generate some good will after flipping on the bump stock fiasco anyways, so one can hope they throw a significant amount of their weight behind it.[/QUOTE] Any good will the NRA generated quickly burned up when they flip flopped against a bump stock ban after coming out in suport of restrictions on bump stocks

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52954687]With their other policies, it won't really do much for rural places. It may have a decent independent appeal though, given that most independents in America are centre-right. Although I'd much prefer the dems be fairly anti-gun, but reasonably anti-gun. Shit like talking about "assault weapons" accomplish nothing and make the party look stupid.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately "reasonably" anti-gun is never actually reasonable enough for people. Especially for states like CA or NY.

[QUOTE=Johnny Joe;52954684]There's a difference between better regulation and the frankly retarded "solutions" on guns the democrats are known for supporting, especially in my home state of CA. This better regulation you speak of is nonexistent, it's pure prohibition that is wanted by most democratic lawmakers. Also this, complete ignorance on the subject, a total lack of understanding about them.[/QUOTE] I would also be for pure prohibition eventually.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52954934]I would also be for pure prohibition eventually.[/QUOTE] (this is the reason nobody gives any ground on gun regulations) Most "gun people" are, principally, totally willing to accept compromises on the right to bear arms in the name of public safety and comfort. And yet, every proposed compromise from antis is really just a stepping stone on the way to total confiscation and criminalization - is it any wonder we refuse to budge when there are no genuine, good-faith compromises from antis? You can't seem to accept that America is a land of compromises, meeting in the middle, coexistence. It's gotta be your way or the highway. That's why we still have a "gun problem."

[QUOTE=Grenadiac;52955005](this is the reason nobody gives any ground on gun regulations) Most "gun people" are, principally, totally willing to accept compromises on the right to bear arms in the name of public safety and comfort. And yet, every proposed compromise from antis is really just a stepping stone on the way to total confiscation and criminalization - is it any wonder we refuse to budge when there are no genuine, good-faith compromises from antis? You can't seem to accept that America is a land of compromises, meeting in the middle, coexistence. It's gotta be your way or the highway. That's why we still have a "gun problem."[/QUOTE] Some things you should compromise on, some things you shouldn't. I'm fine with gradual stepping stones to full confiscation, but that's the direction we need to be going in

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52954601]If it's locked in a secure box while driving through NY is it a crime?[/QUOTE] Technically, no. But if your car breaks down and you have to remove it from your car, then you've committed a crime. People fly through JFK airport (in NY) with guns securely locked, since the same inter-state transport laws protect them there. But if your flight is canceled or delayed, you are required to pick up your baggage. Then by taking possession of your secured firearm, you have committed a crime, the weapon will be confiscated, and you are subject to a fine. New York actively profits by catching travelers in violation of their local laws despite good-faith effort to comply with the restrictions of inter-state transit laws. [QUOTE=proboardslol;52954675]Democratic politicians want guns to be better regulated because conservatives have somehow come to accept that it's okay to have the gun death rate of a 3rd world country.[/QUOTE] Or, maybe conservative politicians oppose gun regulation because democrats have somehow come to believe that having the non-firearm homicide rate of a 3rd-world country is inexplicably caused by guns. Not just any guns at that, specifically scary ones that represent less than a percent of all firearm homicides. But sure you can sit on that high horse and say that gun owners' disdain for misguided, shitty, knee-jerk legislation is purely because we refuse to think of the children.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955044]Some things you should compromise on, some things you shouldn't. I'm fine with gradual stepping stones to full confiscation, but that's the direction we need to be going in[/QUOTE] Why?

[QUOTE=proboardslol;52955044]Some things you should compromise on, some things you shouldn't. I'm fine with gradual stepping stones to full confiscation, but that's the direction we need to be going in[/QUOTE] If this is your stance, then nothing being accomplished shouldn't be that much of a surprise to you. This is the reason why no one gets what they want when it comes to this.