TexasCHLforum.com

I'm for states rights in general, but CHL carry across state lines is a big mess. Is there a reason why we should allow federal legislation on reciprocity?
For all I know this is simple political pandering and doesn't have a chance of going anywhere...

Can't find the bill but in an interview John Cornyn does talk a little about the bill.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/the-j ... fullpage=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

“No, I’m not satisfied, but I think the focus has been misplaced by limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens who are exercising their constitutional rights. This is not something we allow people to do at the sufferance of the government. What I’ve noticed is that the way people react to guns has a lot to do with the region of the country in which they live, and people who did not grow up around guns are scared of them. So of course that colors your point of view. I actually have legislation that I’m working on with Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, on mental health issues.”

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

VMI77 wrote:Can 't find any specifics....did find the Texas Monthly interview.....but his answer also does not contain any specifics, and the TM characterization of the bill is different than that of Stockman, in that it ties it with a history of violence.

This sounds much more realistic in terms of Senators Cornyn and Graham. The biggest problem with the Obama executive order is that it abandons the "danger" element and if the as-yet unwritten Cornyn/Graham bill requires a history of violence, then it would trump the Obama executive order. So one again, Stockman doesn't feel constrained by the truth. Sadly, this isn't a surprise. I do wish he'd go back to Michigan.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

if it doesn't give them control of guns coming into their state, then the Dems won't vote for the bill and the bargain won't go thru....there will be a change, and it will pass. Orrrrr, the bargain will fail and everyone will be able to say they tried, which I suppose might be what they are trying for, but that sounds like an incredible waste of time, which I'm all for, means they aren't trying to take even more of my money.

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

if it doesn't give them control of guns coming into their state, then the Dems won't vote for the bill and the bargain won't go thru....there will be a change, and it will pass. Orrrrr, the bargain will fail and everyone will be able to say they tried, which I suppose might be what they are trying for, but that sounds like an incredible waste of time, which I'm all for, means they aren't trying to take even more of my money.

I don't think you realize the last time this bill was attempted, it passed the house and came within one vote of passing the Senate. I am more hopeful than you.

Personally, I'd like to make a trip to NYC just to be able to carry there. Kind of like sticking my thumb in their eye. I'd probably carry a J-frame revolver with a couple reloads since I believe that would be allowable under New York's draconian (and idiotic) gun laws.

Jumping Frog wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

if it doesn't give them control of guns coming into their state, then the Dems won't vote for the bill and the bargain won't go thru....there will be a change, and it will pass. Orrrrr, the bargain will fail and everyone will be able to say they tried, which I suppose might be what they are trying for, but that sounds like an incredible waste of time, which I'm all for, means they aren't trying to take even more of my money.

I don't think you realize the last time this bill was attempted, it passed the house and came within one vote of passing the Senate. I am more hopeful than you.

Personally, I'd like to make a trip to NYC just to be able to carry there. Kind of like sticking my thumb in their eye. I'd probably carry a J-frame revolver with a couple reloads since I believe that would be allowable under New York's draconian (and idiotic) gun laws.

Let's just imagine this bill gets passed and all states "must" honor other state's permits.

We already know that some states can care less about FOPA and that there are several instances of firearms owners being arrested and I think one is even in prison despite this law.

I personally will never step foot in NYC, even if it is ever "legal" for me to CC there. I don't trust the New York cops, courts, or judges. I fear them more than the criminals.

A federal reciprocity law does not mean a thing.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

if it doesn't give them control of guns coming into their state, then the Dems won't vote for the bill and the bargain won't go thru....there will be a change, and it will pass. Orrrrr, the bargain will fail and everyone will be able to say they tried, which I suppose might be what they are trying for, but that sounds like an incredible waste of time, which I'm all for, means they aren't trying to take even more of my money.

I don't think you realize the last time this bill was attempted, it passed the house and came within one vote of passing the Senate. I am more hopeful than you.

Personally, I'd like to make a trip to NYC just to be able to carry there. Kind of like sticking my thumb in their eye. I'd probably carry a J-frame revolver with a couple reloads since I believe that would be allowable under New York's draconian (and idiotic) gun laws.

Let's just imagine this bill gets passed and all states "must" honor other state's permits.

We already know that some states can care less about FOPA and that there are several instances of firearms owners being arrested and I think one is even in prison despite this law.

I personally will never step foot in NYC, even if it is ever "legal" for me to CC there. I don't trust the New York cops, courts, or judges. I fear them more than the criminals.

A federal reciprocity law does not mean a thing.

Anygunanywhere

I feel the same way about some cities in Texas.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

SewTexas wrote:
this is a states rights issue it is not Federal! NONONO!

I don't agree. The bill will not give the feds regulatory authority over a state's CHL requirements. It will simply mean all states will have to recognize all licenses, but licensees will have to comply with the laws of the states into which they choose to carry a handgun.

If it is amended to allow regulatory authority by the feds, then it will be killed.

Chas.

if it doesn't give them control of guns coming into their state, then the Dems won't vote for the bill and the bargain won't go thru....there will be a change, and it will pass. Orrrrr, the bargain will fail and everyone will be able to say they tried, which I suppose might be what they are trying for, but that sounds like an incredible waste of time, which I'm all for, means they aren't trying to take even more of my money.

I don't think you realize the last time this bill was attempted, it passed the house and came within one vote of passing the Senate. I am more hopeful than you.

Personally, I'd like to make a trip to NYC just to be able to carry there. Kind of like sticking my thumb in their eye. I'd probably carry a J-frame revolver with a couple reloads since I believe that would be allowable under New York's draconian (and idiotic) gun laws.

Let's just imagine this bill gets passed and all states "must" honor other state's permits.

We already know that some states can care less about FOPA and that there are several instances of firearms owners being arrested and I think one is even in prison despite this law.

I personally will never step foot in NYC, even if it is ever "legal" for me to CC there. I don't trust the New York cops, courts, or judges. I fear them more than the criminals.

A federal reciprocity law does not mean a thing.

Anygunanywhere

maybe I'm crazy and paranoid, but I really don't think so. This will simply give NY cops a reason to harass anyone with a Texas license plate and anything that looks like a gun sticker. I'm sorry but New York WILL NOT allow anyone to bring unknown guns into their state, law or no law. that law will be changed. and the fact that Cornyn is one of the ones who has proposed it, angers me.

Let's get back on the OP's original subject -- Stockman's latest lie. Anyone who wants to discuss national reciprocity can start a new thread.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Senator Cornyn is supposed to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. How can he be doing this? Out of Bloomberg, I'd expect it. But Bloomberg isn't a Senator for Texas.

Maybe he saw all the nutjobs shooting up schools, malls, government buildings, and movie theaters and thought "hey maybe we should modify the current background check to better weed out wack jobs"

wack jobs don't need guns. bats, hammers, knives all work just as well. how 'bout we just lock up wack jobs and be done with them. if we can find wack jobs during a back ground check, they developed a back ground somewhere and we should be able to find them long before they purchase a gun. heck, lets just gas 'em all as soon as the background is established.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:Senator Cornyn is supposed to be a 2nd Amendment supporter. How can he be doing this? Out of Bloomberg, I'd expect it. But Bloomberg isn't a Senator for Texas.

Maybe he saw all the nutjobs shooting up schools, malls, government buildings, and movie theaters and thought "hey maybe we should modify the current background check to better weed out wack jobs"

No, he's trying to prevent America's worst President from calling anyone he likes a "nubjob" and denying them Second Amendment rights.

Chas.

I went to Cornyn's Senate website and to his Facebook page. Then I went to Congress.gov (the replacement for the Thomas site) and looked for the bill. Then I googled it. Nothing. I can't find anything about this, except major echoes of Stockman's claims. No news stories. No blogs. Nothing. Very strange indeed, if it's true.

IMHO, Stockman, no matter what office he might hold, if any, should be carefully watched. Any statement he makes, or position he appears to take on any issue, should be most carefully assessed.

Jim

cb1000rider wrote:Or make it so that you have to "prove" that you're mentally fit, which is going to cost a fortune.

Especially since all doctors now work for the government which controls their professional judgment and activities.

"Whose salt you eat, whose song you sing."