“Fix NICS” bill.... relax, will ya?

[Certaindeaf]

Copy and paste the actual language from the actual bill that any of you feel is objectionable. At least this way you may read the bill...which is only a couple of pages long.

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.. the sky is falling, man!

 

[Stomper]

Remember how Obama had VA and Social Security flagging people for PTSD or having financial powers-of-attorney?

That was an EO, not statuarory law.

 

[Heyjoe]

Some may not like the fact that this legislation would grant nearly 1 billion dollars to the feds and there agencies.....
How much faith have you that big brother won't abuse this ??

This bill was about concealed license reciprocity. Now it's about Feinstein- schumer reacharound the nra to milk the cash cow that is the american taxpayer.

I am vehemently opposed to ANY more of my hard earned money being sent to the swamp. Dem or rep. They are all the same.

 

[Goosebrown]

Reciprocity alone will not pass. If you want that right then you need to attach it to a bill that simply states that state entities abide by the existing law.

This is nothing new just a way to get these bubblegumming LEO organizations to follow the law.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Some may not like the fact that this legislation would grant nearly 1 billion dollars to the feds and there agencies.....
How much faith have you that big brother won't abuse this ??

This bill was about concealed license reciprocity. Now it's about Feinstein- schumer reacharound the nra to milk the cash cow that is the american taxpayer.

I am vehemently opposed to ANY more of my hard earned money being sent to the swamp. Dem or rep. They are all the same.

Yea well some people don't like milk on their cornflakes.
And a billion dollars? Come on. The government is a fixed/sunk cost so it'd "cost" the same no matter what they actually "do". At least Trump is markedly reducing the size of all Federal government for some real reductions of costs.

 

[Stomper]

Look on the bright side.... you'll be able fret over Big Brother wasting more taxpayer money while being armed... coast to coast.

 

[Goosebrown]

How much faith have you that big brother won't abuse this ??

A lot. If you want them to do something you have to pay them to do it. Getting existing criminals and abusers onto the NICS list is something I want them to do.

We tell the antis that we don't need more laws. Well if that's the case we have a huge interest in making sure the existing laws DO work right.

If you don't want to pay taxes I am with you in that but this one is worth it.

 

[CHLChris]

I did not, however, pore through the main reciprocity bill. I heard somewhere (and I admit I should do my own due diligence on this stuff) that not only can we carry in, say, California, with our Oregon CHL, but we'd be able to carry any gun that's legal in our own state, with whatever size magazine is legal in our own state, and with whatever ammo is legal (stickin' it to Jersey...).

This is pretty cool!

 

[Goosebrown]

But you have to follow their rules about where to carrry like not in schools or whatever.

 

[Stomper]

But you have to follow their rules about where to carrry like not in schools or whatever.

Only perverts would visit schools where they have no kids....

I may actually take my Aussie wife to DC to show her all the monuments 'n stuff if this bill passes.... maybe even NYC since it seems to be the "Mecca" for all foreign nationals to visit....


BTW, FU NY.....

 

[PiratePast40]

The fix NICS part is basically giving the libs a cookie and telling them to go sit in the corner and STFU.

 

[teflon6string]

Good or bad, I've never liked riders on bills. Added peripheral agendas remind me of food products with "Wholesome" in a big, bold, colorful label on the front of the package and high fructose corn syrup buried within small print on the back.

It's all there, but the presentation is intentionally duplicitous. "Packaged" bills are seldom, if ever, good/good. Politics is a sneaky, dirty business.

 

[Heyjoe]

Fair enough.

Politics as usual wins again, we'll see.

As for the dumpster man, I'm beginning to think he's as out of touch as the rest of the scumbags suits.

Respectfully, just this mans opinion. The last thing i want is to offend fellow Americans.

Edit to add: back to work. Don't want big brother to be disappointed in my earnings for 2017.

 

[Goosebrown]

Only perverts would visit schools where they have no kids....

I may actually take my Aussie wife to DC to show her all the monuments 'n stuff if this bill passes.... maybe even NYC since it seems to be the "Mecca" for all foreign nationals to visit....


BTW, FU NY.....

Take her to Gettysburg and colonial Williamsburg while you're there. Took my Kiwi wife there. She loved Williamsburg but "got" Gettysburg too.

 

[Goosebrown]

Fair enough.

Politics as usual wins again, we'll see.

Getting reciprocity is not politics as usual. And the fix NICS bill is something we want as well. It's not a good/bad, it's two good bills

 

[notazombie]

I'm honestly kind of indifferent on the whole matter because it'll have little impact on my life if it truly is as represented. I live in a constitutional carry state and rarely feel a need to carry across state lines. I also wouldn't be considered a red flagged individual on NICS.
That being said, I'm extremely skeptical of any legislation that gets the backing of Schumer or Feinstein. I'm also completely opposed to any mixed bills. They all need to stand on their own merits.
My official position is wait and see but there is undeniable potential for abuse here.

 

[Stomper]

OK, I keep hearing about "undeniable potential for abuse", and have YET seen one bubblegumming specific example laid out.

I'm not calling out anyone in particular (seriously), but SOMEONE map out a "potential for abuse" that already isn't there with the current "arrangement" other than "if Chuck and Nancy are for it, I'm against it", argument.


Motherbubblegummer, c'mon people... spell out a specific argument why, I really wanna hear it!!

 

[Certaindeaf]

I'm honestly kind of indifferent on the whole matter because it'll have little impact on my life..

I think and hope that this will affect everybody in unforeseen and positive ways.
Imagine "free" people, would this pass, being able to go to an un-free state. This would soon cause those people to whine and complain "Huh, all those guys can carry guns but/so why can't we?".. thereby ultimately increasing our numbers and furthering the cause greatly.
This could be the beginning of the end of ugly, out of control and hateful statism.

 

[nammac]

... I'm extremely skeptical of any legislation that gets the backing of Schumer or Feinstein...

This right here should concern anyone who supports 2A rights... There's something that's fishy in this fish wrapper legislation, me thinks...

 

[notazombie]

OK, I keep hearing about "undeniable potential for abuse", and have YET seen one bubblegumming specific example laid out.

I'm not calling out anyone in particular (seriously), but SOMEONE map out a "potential for abuse" that already isn't there with the current "arrangement" other than "if Chuck and Nancy are for it, I'm against it", argument.


Motherbubblegummer, c'mon people... spell out a specific argument why, I really wanna year it!!

I know you aren't calling anyone out by name but since your post was immediately following mine and there were some paraphrased quotes, I'll just speak to my perspective.
POTENTIAL for abuse: What I see here isn't likely to be immediate but down the road as the pendulum swings the other way and a more anti regime comes into power. I will expect the definitions of restricted persons to morph which will exclude more people that may be no threat. Then if we put up any objection we'll be told, "Well, the NRA supported it so STFU and take your medicine." Will it happen? Don't know -- but the potential is there.

Diane, Chuck and Nancy: Dude, seriously? We just invited them to apply more scrutiny. That doesn't make you the least bit nervous?

Good or bad, these should have been separate bills. I'm just tired of always being on the side that has to compromise and take what I'm given.
Do I want dangerous excluded individuals to fall through the cracks? Hell no. Do I think that free people should have to give up their rights based on which side of an imaginary line they happen to travel across? Hell no. Do I trust government to make an accurate distinction between who is allowed to carry what and where and who isn't. Oh, hell no!

As I stated earlier, my official position is wait and see.