HB 822 Passes Hurdles

[Liberty]

A bill is to be judged by the company it keeps.
Bloomburg and his band of Illegal Mayors against guns Doesn't like this bill. The NRA is pushing hard for it.

I choose to be on the side of the NRA and be on the side that makes the Bradley bunch whine and cry like babys.

Maybe Obama won't sign the bill, but if he vetos it it will surely draw ire in the undecided states like Florida and Louisianna. If this Bill loses out for another day and it cost Obama the election it will still be a good thing. I do believe this has enough votes in the Senate, its all a matter if it can get through the chairmen and Harry Rieds henchmen. .
If 822 becomes law we can hope that it gets a constitutional challenge. This could mark the end of other more devious abuses of the commerce clause. I would gladly sacrifice guaranteed reciprocity if the end result is abuses of the commerce clause get a closer look.

[Bullwhip]

It passed. What do we do when Sheila Jackson Lee is in the majority?

[RPB]

A bill is to be judged by the company it keeps.
Bloomburg and his band of Illegal Mayors against guns Doesn't like this bill. The NRA is pushing hard for it.

I choose to be on the side of the NRA and be on the side that makes the Bradley bunch whine and cry like babys.

Maybe Obama won't sign the bill, but if he vetos it it will surely draw ire in the undecided states like Florida and Louisianna. If this Bill loses out for another day and it cost Obama the election it will still be a good thing. I do believe this has enough votes in the Senate, its all a matter if it can get through the chairmen and Harry Rieds henchmen. .
If 822 becomes law we can hope that it gets a constitutional challenge. This could mark the end of other more devious abuses of the commerce clause. I would gladly sacrifice guaranteed reciprocity if the end result is abuses of the commerce clause get a closer look.

I hadn't thought about all that, ... thanks.

Now if they'll get to the US ACE properties bills ...

Maybe this was a testing the water before taking on the Army Corps of Engineers ...

[JJVP]

It passed. What do we do when Sheila Jackson Lee is in the majority?

God saves us all. The arguments she put on defending her two illogical ill-conceived amendments where incoherent and out of left field. I feel ashamed that that woman represents the state of Texas. Can't understand how her constituents continue to elect such an incompetent woman to congress.

[ac-mech]

Now, what are the next steps fort this bill..?

[i8godzilla]

Now, what are the next steps fort this bill..?

Goes to the Senate where they get to (my simplified version):

a. Ignore it
b. Send it to committee for review and draft their own version
c. Debate it (or not)
d. Pass their version and send it back to the House.
e. Negotiate a compromised version with the House.
f. Pass the House version and send to POTUS

The Senate and House must pass identical bills before sending it to POTUS for signature or veto. Once vetoed by POTUS, it can go back to Congress where they can try and pass with 2/3 majority to override the veto, create a new version and start the process all over, or say we tried and drop the issue. The other option is to attach the legislation to a bill POTUS wants to sign and then it becomes law.

[ELB]

It passed. What do we do when Sheila Jackson Lee is in the majority?

Make sure she's never in the majority again. Elections have consequences.

[johnson0317]

I am more worried that it will pass. Amendments could make it a powerful Trojan Horse for anti-gun policies

That sounds like a news release from NAGR. In fact, they call it a "Trojan Horse". This bill has great possibilities. It all depends on stupid ammendments being kept off of it. If they do, then this will be a huge win for CHL.

RJ

[chasfm11]

Now, what are the next steps fort this bill..?

Goes to the Senate where they get to (my simplified version):

a. Ignore it
b. Send it to committee for review and draft their own version
c. Debate it (or not)
d. Pass their version and send it back to the House.
e. Negotiate a compromised version with the House.
f. Pass the House version and send to POTUS

The Senate and House must pass identical bills before sending it to POTUS for signature or veto. Once vetoed by POTUS, it can go back to Congress where they can try and pass with 2/3 majority to override the veto, create a new version and start the process all over, or say we tried and drop the issue. The other option is to attach the legislation to a bill POTUS wants to sign and then it becomes law.

I will be very surprised if this bill ever sees the light of day in the Senate. Many have said that Senator Reid is gun friendly but I don't think that, given the current political environment, he is going to demonstrate that friendliness now. Even if it was passed by the Senate exactly as the House passed it, there is no way that our current President is going to sign it. The backlash from his own base would produce a roar that would be deafening.

[ELB]

It had good support in the Senate last time it was introduced there, but Schumer filibustered it. Whether Obama let's it become law or not will depend entirely on the political circumstances at the moment -- he clearly manipulates everything he can to save himself. His base can uproar all they want, who will they vote for instead? the Republican nominee? Ralph Nader? (Run Ralph, run!) If it comes to him before the Demo primaries, and Hillary threatens to run, that might push him to sign it, but otherwise, it will be a wind-check decision.

[Kythas]

My concern with this is the government itself. We all know how, once they get their grubby fingers into something, they use that to exploit things.

For example, giving the government the power to force states to recognize each others CHL may lead to the government deciding that, to better enable each state to know who has a valid CHL from each state, to begin keeping a nationwide database. That may become unwieldy, though, so they may try for a Federal CHL, valid in all 50 states. This would become a de facto registration.

I just don't trust the government to stop with this. Give them a little power and they have historically used that to justify taking a lot more than was ever intended.

An easier way to accomplish this would be for the government to say "The 2nd Amendment applies to all States, period, and no State may abridge any Citizen's right to own or bear arms." I know Heller was supposed to have done this, but that was an imperfect decision by the SC as it still left lots of room for states to restrict carry rights.

[ELB]

The Federal government already has its grubby fingers into firearms regulation -- and Heller reaffirms that, by the way -- you don't have to worry about "giving them the power" to regulate national CHL, because the Constitution gives them that power already, via the Commerce Clause as currently intepreted, and it seems also the Privileges and Immunity Clause, which is perhaps the main constitutional hook for it.

Heller was not supposed to make the 2A uber-powerful over the states -- all it was really focused on was whether it was Constitutional for the federal government to deny people the ability to have a handgun in the home for self-defense. The answer was no. A happy effect of the reasoning process is that ALL the Justices said the 2A is an individual, not a collective right. An unhappy effect is that ALL the Justices agreed that the 2A could be regulated by law. The point of dispute among them is about how much regulation is allowable.

The last time National Reciprocity was up for a "proxy" vote in the Senate, a substantial majority of the Senate supported it. I say "proxy" vote because what was really voted on was an attempt to override Sen Schumer's filibuster of the bill. It failed 58-39, meaning 58 senators voted to bring it to the floor for a full Senate vote, but 60 votes were needed to over-ride Schumer's filibustering. (Apparently two RINOs from Ohio bailed at the last moment, sustaining the filibuster).

Apparently most senators support it, and whether Harry Reid, who is indeed slime, but pro-gun slime, will let the House version come up again will depend on a new set of circumstances, the most important of which will be "Will this help Harry Reid?"

Should it get thru the Senate and go to Obama, will he veto it? I don't think that is a foregone conclusion, just like Harry, the O will do whatever is best for him at the moment, and he decide that irritating his base is less important than giving the NRA another stick to beat him with. Take note that he just now signed into law a bill that among other things:

- Makes permanent (as permanent as any law can be) the statutory ban on creating a national registry of firearms or firearms owners (previously this had to be voted on every year by Congress)
- Permanently bans the use of FFL records to create a national registry or database of firearms (another one that had to be voted on every year previously)
- Permanently bans the retention of NICS data for more than 24 hours
- Prevents the DOJ from banning the importation of shotguns because the DOJ decides they don't have a "sporting" purpose
- Prevents the use of funds for any "Gunwalker" type operations
- Prevents the BATFE from pulling a FFL for "low business activity" (not selling "enough" guns to be legit in BATFE eyes)

Several other pro-2A provisions were included in the bill, and the O signed then all into law. Of course they were bundled with other stuff that he wanted more than he wanted a fight with the NRA, but that's how legislation works.

I actually think the big hurdle is getting around Schumer's big mouth with 60 votes, not Obama's veto. Schumer's other pet anti-gun bill got rained on in Committee by Dave Kopel, and I doubt it will go anywhere, so his big chance to show his anti-gun creds will be trying to tie up 822 in the Senate. (And note that Schumer's pet anti-gun bill wants to set up national registration schemes and such -- he didn't need 822 to do that, and it would probably be Constitutional to boot).

So note that while NAGR was bleating about "trojan horse amendments" and national databases and other such stuff via a bill that may or may not make it, the NRA was quietly doing serious work to get actual laws passed against all that kind of stuff.

[Lambda Force]

I just don't trust the government to stop with this. Give them a little power and they have historically used that to justify taking a lot more than was ever intended.

If the LEOSA didn't exist, or had been ruled unconstitutional, you might have a point. However, it seems like they already think they can regulate carry within states, so why shouldn't we get some benefit if we're going to get scrooged either way?

[knljr]

From the article:

"Pandering to the extreme right with a bill to put more concealed guns into our neighborhoods does not create jobs," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said. "It will only make our streets less safe and contribute to the trafficking in illegal firearms."

What a moron.

[OldCurlyWolf]

That would have been a powerful message if we could have gotten a yes vote from giffords. God's speed in her recovery

Amen