Cornyn offers ‘reciprocity’ for 17 million concealed carry permit holders

Nil. Notice how the GOP didn't bring it up for a vote in the senate even when they had a majority. So why bring it back now that there's no chance of it clearing the house? They're only doing it now to drum up the base and trot out the boogeyman for donations and to maintain the appearance of fighting for 2A.

^ hate to say it but that’s pretty much spot on.

They could have been like Democrats and actually do something when in power rather than drag feet until you loose it, then fluff your wings and make noise.

Yep, Cornyn and the Republicans had two years in which to pass that bill; they failed to act. Now Cornyn's pandering.

And they think we're stupid enough to fall for this

Kevin5098 said:

And they think we're stupid enough to fall for this

Click to expand...

And our option is?

psyopspec said:

Nil. Notice how the GOP didn't bring it up for a vote in the senate even when they had a majority. So why bring it back now that there's no chance of it clearing the house? They're only doing it now to drum up the base and trot out the boogeyman for donations and to maintain the appearance of fighting for 2A.

Click to expand...

First, a majority in the Senate is meaningless. A vote of cloture (a vote to take a vote) requires 60 votes. In the last Congress, that meant 8 Democrats had to support a piece of legislation to get to a vote. So, with less than 60 votes, and several unreliable GOP votes, a majority in the Senate means nothing.

So, this bill may have been presented because House Democrats have submitted UBC legislation and, instead of doing a Nancy Reagan, a viable legislative strategy is to offer Reciprocity and HPA against UBCs. It seems unlikely that Dems will be willing to "compromise" by voting for Reciprocity and HPA in return for UBCs, but allows GOP legislators to respond that they absolutely support "common sense gun laws" and have in fact signaled their support for things like Universal Background Checks, but unfortunately, Dems are dishonest about their desire to find common ground on common sense gun laws and have refused to support legislation designed to protect hearing and rationalize confusing gun laws across multiple jurisdictions.

That is, perhaps, why.

psyopspec said:

Nil. Notice how the GOP didn't bring it up for a vote in the senate even when they had a majority. So why bring it back now that there's no chance of it clearing the house? They're only doing it now to drum up the base and trot out the boogeyman for donations and to maintain the appearance of fighting for 2A.

Click to expand...

Cornyn has a lengthy history of doing as needed to give himself talking points for re-election campaign ads, and duly ignoring his constituents. He’s not a friend of the second amendment and only wants to say he “fought to preserve gun rights” because it sounds good in the ads. He’ll be able to also say, “Well, I tried. Gosh-darn, those Democrats!” He has no intention of pushing that bill and doesn’t care what happens to it. Don’t fool yourselves.

LRDGCO said:

First, a majority in the Senate is meaningless. A vote of cloture (a vote to take a vote) requires 60 votes. In the last Congress, that meant 8 Democrats had to support a piece of legislation to get to a vote. So, with less than 60 votes, and several unreliable GOP votes, a majority in the Senate means nothing.

That is, perhaps, why.

Click to expand...

Thanks for a reply that is not only sensible but also one of the reasons for it not being presented in the senate. Another reason why it never came to the floor is the same reason old one-eye Harry never brought bills to the floor. The speaker does not want to see any of his party vote against a bill like this, and I'm sure there were a few that would "Flake" out and vote no.

I would expect I have more chances of being nominated to the Supreme Court than national reciprocity every passing.

RETG said:

I'm sure there were a few that would "Flake" out and vote no.

Click to expand...

Love it! That's a keeper.

Its ridiculous that a carry permit is not valid in all states the same as a drivers license.

CDW4ME said:

Its ridiculous that a carry permit is not valid in all states the same as a drivers license.

Click to expand...

It's ridiculous that the 2A has been infringed upon to the point where such a thing as a carry "permit" exists at all.

Is there anything to be worried about with Concealed Carry Reciprocity, in regards to letting the federal government in on a state rights issue?

I'm all for concealed carry reciprocity as long as it won't and will never supercede rights of individuals in states that allows for more rights than the concealed carry reciprocity. Meaning the federal concealed carry reciprocity supercedes lessor rights afforded by states (granting more rights) but not the other way around (restricting citizens rights within a state).

<*(((>< said:

Is there anything to be worried about with UBC, in regards to letting the federal government in on a state rights issue?

I'm all for UBC as long as it won't and will never supercede rights of individuals in states that allows for more rights than the UBC. Meaning the federal UBC supercedes lessor rights afforded by states (granting more rights) but not the other way around (restricting citizens rights within a state).

Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the original post?

Sovblocgunfan said:

What does this have to do with the original post?

Click to expand...

Sorry wrong acronym not UBC, meant concealed carry reciprocity. Thanks for clearing my post up, I edited my original.

I'm with the others that take issue with the fact that this wasn't brought up when there was a majority to push such an item. This is exactly as was stated above, pandering.

Ah. Makes more sense now.

It’s a further infringement on states rights, but the 10th amendment has been diminished for some time now, if not essentially dead altogether.

Cornyn is a RINO. Seriously. Many of these guys are no friend to the Constitution or any of the Bill of Rights.

They're what's wrong with the whole two party system.

<*(((>< said:

Is there anything to be worried about with Concealed Carry Reciprocity, in regards to letting the federal government in on a state rights issue?

Click to expand...

Not if you don't care about all the other things the fed might dream up as a condition of 50 state reciprocity. Lets see, maybe we should get the NRA to come up with the conditions like NRA certified training. This could go south real quick if you let the fed set the conditions. I'm not sure I want the fed involved with any more gun control. The administration is already on board with ERPO's and if a UBC ever got to the presidents desk he would be more than happy to sign it.

Nat'l reciprocity is a pie-in-the-sky dream anyway because it won't pass the constitutional smell test. You might as well try to come up with a Nat'l speed limit. Wait, I guess they already tried that.

Good ‘ol John Wayne Cornyn. Esteemed member of the Get Along Gang.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2903122

Senior Republican says current system has too many gaps

Texas Republican Senator John Cornyn said he'll work with Democrats in the chamber to close gaps in national background checks for firearm purchasers after the discovery that the gunman who killed 26 people in a Texas church slipped through the system.

Cornyn told reporters Tuesday that he's talked with Democratic Senators Chris Murphy, Jeanne Shaheen and Martin Heinrich "and I think we are interested in trying to find a way to work together to deal with improving the background check system and fixing these holes."

Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...en-john-cornyn-texas-pushes-action-backg/amp/

”We need to get started on things that only we can do, which would be this background check system,” Cornyn said. “I would just like to recommend to my colleagues here: Get that done and we build on it. We don’t stop there, we build on it.”

Click to expand...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v..._nics_bill_into_comprehensive_gun_reform.html

TRUMP: And, John, Fix NICS has some really good things in it. But it would be nice if we could add everything on to it. And maybe you change the title, all right? The U.S. Background Check Bill, or whatever. But your bill is really good, and really important, having to do with a certain aspect. But maybe we could make it much more comprehensive, and have one bill, instead of 15 different bills that nobody knows what's happening.

CORNYN: If we can get 60 votes for it, Mr. President, I'm all for it.

Click to expand...

Don’t think he won’t sell you out to put a feather in his own cap. Be wary.

CoalTrain49 said:

Not if you don't care about all the other things the fed might dream up as a condition of 50 state reciprocity. Lets see, maybe we should get the NRA to come up with the conditions like NRA certified training. This could go south real quick if you let the fed set the conditions. I'm not sure I want the fed involved with any more gun control. The administration is already on board with ERPO's and if a UBC ever got to the presidents desk he would be more than happy to sign it.

Nat'l reciprocity is a pie-in-the-sky dream anyway because it won't pass the constitutional smell test. You might as well try to come up with a Nat'l speed limit. Wait, I guess they already tried that.

Click to expand...

As I'm sure you assumed, my initial question was merely rhetorical.

Concealed carry reciprocity scares me personally, not because of what it allows but how intrusive it has the potential to be inviting the federal government in to what is currently a states right issue only. Maybe I'm concerned over nothing, but the potential ramifications should be in the forefront of the drafters of such legislation to make sure that there are protections against federal government overreach into states rights.

It's a response to the UBC bill.
"You won't pass the repciprocity bill, we're not signing for the UBC."

Deus Machina said:

It's a response to the UBC bill.
"You won't pass the repciprocity bill, we're not signing for the UBC."

Click to expand...

Has that look to it, that's for sure. Everything seems to be a poker chip these days. Everyone put their chips on the table and we'll see who has the best hand.

wally said:

And our option is?

Click to expand...

If he were my Senator I would be contacting him to let him know how I feel and that I will take his actions into consideration in 2020. Or,you can do nothing and vote him in again.

And our option is?

Click to expand...

And that’s why nothing ever gets done for us. We are granite being eroded by water.

If we vote for them, sometimes, they may take away our rights at a slower rate but if they actually did something that ensured them, they would be scared we wouldn’t come out and vote for them in the droves we did after Clinton’s AWB, giving “them” a POTUS, Senate and House, only for them to do absolutely nothing, zero, to reward us for our efforts. Then the people that elected you loose enthusiasm and the cycle starts over.

Why I don’t have a lot of high hopes for 2020, “our guy” already made something gun related that was legal, illegal without passing a single law or getting anything that his constituents voted him in for, for it.

Bad precedent and I have a sinking feeling it won’t be the last one. Both parties have been kicking the can down the road on border security since before most people here have even been alive, to call it a national emergency at this point and taking an executive action will just allow “the other side” do the same thing when they are back in power and the subject is guns, global warming or the chance of meatballs falling out of the sky.