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

[CapnMac]

Larger-scale political positioning.

One side will push for meaningless UBC, and will claim that all opponents are in favor of gun crime.
So, other side puts up a bill that would make people safer, and can claim all opponents are "pro-criminal."

That part makes sense.

How anyone expects states like NY, CT, MA, CA to agree to reciprocity with less-strict states--like MD, IL, NJ--let alone lenient states alike AR, TN, AZ, just confuses me. And that's before sorting out the mess of how some are CCW, some are LTC, and some are something else entire.
To then need to visit the fundamental problem of what the Nation can grant, it can also deny. Simple example: Congress nn passes NRC based on you must comply to the least stringent State's rules. Congress nn + x can then pass a bill amending the first that the most stringent State rule applies. What good is National Reciprocity Carry if you have to follow DC, or NYS carry rules?

Actually, Driver's Licenses are not, in fact, universal across the States. They actually vary pretty widely in identity requirements, carry requirements, restrictions and the like. The difference is that if you go to a State with a more stringent DL rule, you are not arrested for "illegal driving."

I'm all in favor standing up political cudgels to use against "our" opponents; we can use the help we get.

 

[GAF]

Disingenuous and all of it synonyms apply here.
dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious, not candid, not frank, not entirely truthful, cunning, crafty, wily, sly, sneaky, tricky, scheming, calculating, designing, devious, unscrupulous,informal shifty, foxy,humorous economical with the truth. Probably more.

 

[BigBL87]

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.

I do understand the cloture issue.

My thing is instead of just backing down because you don't have 60 votes for cloture, MAKE them filibuster bills. Show the country how obstructionist they are. Don't even have to do it over 2A issues, just do it.

 

[wally]

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.

I do contact him and Cruz regularly, but irregardless of his "actions" not voting for him is effectively voting for Beto or his Socialist ilk

 

[Phaedrus/69]

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.

I think it's a valid concern. Look at what the Feds have done with Drivers Licenses and "interstate commerce".

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

I think it's a valid concern. Look at what the Feds have done with Drivers Licenses and "interstate commerce".

Interstate commerce, as I recall, was a main underpinning of GCA ‘68.

 

[alsaqr]

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.

If senators like Cornyn really cared they could have tacked the bill onto to unrelated legislation the opposition wanted really bad. That is often done with other legislation.

For many years the Republicans ran both houses of congress and the white house. They did a net nothing for gun owners.

 

[LRDGCO]

If senators like Cornyn really cared they could have tacked the bill onto to unrelated legislation the opposition wanted really bad. That is often done with other legislation.

For many years the Republicans ran both houses of congress and the white house. They did a net nothing for gun owners.

Again, so that you understand how the government doesn't work: Senator Cornyn can't "tack a bill" onto anything. He can ask leadership, but ultimately, decisions on what legislation gets voted and what gets packaged together gets decided by the Majority Leader. For the last four years, that has been Mitch McConnell - for two of those years anything he could get passed faced a possible White House Veto.. Prior to that, for six years it was Dirty Harry Reid. Since a cloture vote requires 60 votes, if you want to get things passed, you send things to a vote that will get 60 votes.

 

[LRDGCO]

I do understand the cloture issue.

My thing is instead of just backing down because you don't have 60 votes for cloture, MAKE them filibuster bills. Show the country how obstructionist they are. Don't even have to do it over 2A issues, just do it.

Can you name the last non-spending bill filibustered in the Senate ?

I understand your point and there is logic to it, but in reality that is exactly the sort of Beltway BS that has the country in dysfunction. It's inside baseball. Hill staffers and media wonks may know about it but do you think any normal person cares what McConnell and Schumer are bickering about unless the predominantly Pro-Democrat media makes a stink?

Having said that, I must concede your strategy in current circumstances. The House passed a spending bill before Christmas that includes $5.7 billion for a border wall. McConnell should send it for a vote. "Look, we have a bill passed by the House (the new Dem controlled House has passed another one without the border money so it would have to go back to the House for a vote and would fail, but that's not important for the purposes of the exercise) that would reopen the affected agencies but Dems won't even let us vote on it."

Never underestimate the ability of the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Actually, Driver's Licenses are not, in fact, universal across the States. They actually vary pretty widely in identity requirements, carry requirements, restrictions and the like. The difference is that if you go to a State with a more stringent DL rule, you are not arrested for "illegal driving."

That's a very good point. In some states you have to prove with documentation that you are in the country legally (Real ID) to get a DL. Some states, like the one I live in, have never had that requirement. Yet a DL from this state is good in a state where Real ID is in effect. What has happened is some states have two types of DL's, one that affords ID for TSA and border patrol, and another for an undocumented person. Both good anywhere in the US to drive a vehicle.

That's how messed up this can get. In this state there are no requirements other than a back ground check to get a CPL. That's the reason a lot of states won't honor my carry permit.

 

[CoalTrain49]

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.

Yeah, I know and I'm with you on this one 100%. I support states rights with all of the warts and RKBA subversion we endure. The fed needs to keep it's nose out of my business. I don't like fighting a battle on two fronts.

 

[AlexanderA]

The House passed a spending bill before Christmas that includes $5.7 billion for a border wall. McConnell should send it for a vote.

It doesn't work that way. All pending bills die at the end of a session.

 

[LRDGCO]

It doesn't work that way. All pending bills die at the end of a session.

Aha, you are correct! End of Congress is a sine die adjournment.

 

[GBExpat]

Disingenuous and all of it synonyms apply here.
dishonest, deceitful, underhand, underhanded, duplicitous, double-dealing, two-faced, dissembling, insincere, false, lying, untruthful, mendacious, not candid, not frank, not entirely truthful, cunning, crafty, wily, sly, sneaky, tricky, scheming, calculating, designing, devious, unscrupulous,informal shifty, foxy,humorous economical with the truth. Probably more.

<shrug> He is a git ...

... a term which also accurately describes (too) many politicians ... in all parties.

Unfortunately, our political parties are, increasingly (it seems), offering us only a choice between gits; e.g., the last Presidential Election.

 

[giggitygiggity]

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

Agreed. I always love how 2A issues are compared to driving a car... “we register cars so why not guns?” “We have licenses for cars so why not guns?” However, if we suggest that a CCW should be recognized in all 50 states, then the antis backpedal.

My response is simple... we have the 2A... what amendment covers cars? None. “Of course not... cars weren’t invented when they drafted the Constitution.” True, so what amendment covers horse-drawn carriages? Again, none.

 

[AlexanderA]

There could be pro-gun regulations and executive orders. Not needing input from Congress. What have we seen so far from this supposedly pro-gun administration? Nothing but anti-gun pronouncements. For example, certain import restrictions could have been reversed by a stroke of a pen. Why wasn't this done?

 

[giggitygiggity]

This is all because a pro-gun stance expends way too much political capital for representatives who have a decent percentage of constituents in the middle or left political spectrum. Unless the propenderence of a constituency is unapologetically pro 2A, then it is far safer for that representative to lay low, not speak up for the 2A, and not be accused by the left of promoting mass violence by speaking up for the 2A.

That coupled with the sausage making that is legislation and politicking results in few representatives going out on a limb, doing the right thing, and supporting the 2A.

 

[paulsj]

This is all because a pro-gun stance expends way too much political capital for representatives who have a decent percentage of constituents in the middle or left political spectrum. Unless the propenderence of a constituency is unapologetically pro 2A, then it is far safer for that representative to lay low, not speak up for the 2A, and not be accused by the left of promoting mass violence by speaking up for the 2A.

That coupled with the sausage making that is legislation and politicking results in few representatives going out on a limb, doing the right thing, and supporting the 2A.

+1

The goal is to be re-elected and push party agenda driven by those that contribute the most or represent largest block of voters. Those newly elected that mean well are soon sucked up by apparatus of party they belong to and things remain the same.

 

[George P]

Larger-scale political positioning.

One side will push for meaningless UBC, and will claim that all opponents are in favor of gun crime.
So, other side puts up a bill that would make people safer, and can claim all opponents are "pro-criminal."

That part makes sense.

How anyone expects states like NY, CT, MA, CA to agree to reciprocity with less-strict states--like MD, IL, NJ--let alone lenient states alike AR, TN, AZ, just confuses me. And that's before sorting out the mess of how some are CCW, some are LTC, and some are something else entire.
To then need to visit the fundamental problem of what the Nation can grant, it can also deny. Simple example: Congress nn passes NRC based on you must comply to the least stringent State's rules. Congress nn + x can then pass a bill amending the first that the most stringent State rule applies. What good is National Reciprocity Carry if you have to follow DC, or NYS carry rules?

Actually, Driver's Licenses are not, in fact, universal across the States. They actually vary pretty widely in identity requirements, carry requirements, restrictions and the like. The difference is that if you go to a State with a more stringent DL rule, you are not arrested for "illegal driving."

I'm all in favor standing up political cudgels to use against "our" opponents; we can use the help we get.

What will happen is that states like NY, NJ, etc will dictate the Federal rules. They will go something like this:
No carrying in office buildings, no carrying in any park, no carrying on any public transport, including Uber, no carrying ANYWHERE alcohol is sold - including restaurants, C-stores, grocery stores, no mag capacity greater than 6, no carrying anywhere a crowd of more than 10 people congregate, including a party at your place.
They will, in short, screw over all of the good people living in free states where their freedoms will be lost so a few wishful thinkers think they will be allowed to carry in CA, NY etc.

We need to fight Rubio (R) Red Flag law; THAT will cost us a LOT more in the long run

MODS sorry for the political rant/bent.........

 

[armedwalleye]

Am I the only one who approaches the whole notion of National Reciprocity with great trepidation??? Remember, my friends, anything that can be granted on a national scale with the stroke of a pen can unfortunately be removed by the stroke of the next pen. Something like an Executive Order frightens me.

 

[Delawarean]

Shameless pandering.

 

[Dain Bramage]

Remember, my friends, anything that can be granted on a national scale with the stroke of a pen can unfortunately be removed by the stroke of the next pen.

You mean bringing us back to where we are now?

 

[GAF]

You guys really thought he was a Republican?

 

[George P]

You mean bringing us back to where we are now?

No, bringing us back before we had as much concealed carry as we do now; say as in the 30s and 40s.

 

[boom boom]

Can you name the last non-spending bill filibustered in the Senate ?

I understand your point and there is logic to it, but in reality that is exactly the sort of Beltway BS that has the country in dysfunction. It's inside baseball. Hill staffers and media wonks may know about it but do you think any normal person cares what McConnell and Schumer are bickering about unless the predominantly Pro-Democrat media makes a stink?

Having said that, I must concede your strategy in current circumstances. The House passed a spending bill before Christmas that includes $5.7 billion for a border wall. McConnell should send it for a vote. "Look, we have a bill passed by the House (the new Dem controlled House has passed another one without the border money so it would have to go back to the House for a vote and would fail, but that's not important for the purposes of the exercise) that would reopen the affected agencies but Dems won't even let us vote on it."

Never underestimate the ability of the GOP to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

That House bill expired when that Congress did and the new Congress was seated. Bills do not carry to the next Congress and have to be reintroduced.