TexasCHLforum.com

I am certain the NRA has the same concerns as we do, and thanks to the NRA we have the ability to fight efforts to sabotage this bill. I would like to see national reciprocity but I will call for the bill to be killed should it be butchered in an unacceptable manner, just like I suspect the NRA would. Right now this bill looks to be a good thing, there is potential for bad things to be added and I promise that before it is over there will be attempts to do so. With that said this bill on it's own has minimal odds of becoming law because the White House will most likely veto it, as an amendment to a bill the president feels he can't live without we have a chance to get what we want. My thoughts on this particular bill go further than that, but I'm enjoying stirring the pot too much to give all my thoughts away right now.

G.A. Heath wrote:I am certain the NRA has the same concerns as we do, and thanks to the NRA we have the ability to fight efforts to sabotage this bill. I would like to see national reciprocity but I will call for the bill to be killed should it be butchered in an unacceptable manner, just like I suspect the NRA would. Right now this bill looks to be a good thing, there is potential for bad things to be added and I promise that before it is over there will be attempts to do so. With that said this bill on it's own has minimal odds of becoming law because the White House will most likely veto it, as an amendment to a bill the president feels he can't live without we have a chance to get what we want. My thoughts on this particular bill go further than that, but I'm enjoying stirring the pot too much to give all my thoughts away right now.

If Obama signs it I'll take it as evidence that the Bill is actually a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners. No doubt we need the NRA --I'm a member. But the NRA is not all powerful. I'm actually less concerned about the Bill that might pass now --I'm much more concerned about the precedent and how the Bill may be altered in the future. The left, however much they may oppose it now, and however sincere the opposition, will take their broken eggs and make an omlette with them --incrementally amending it to minimize opposition at each step.

The thing that people are overlooking is that right now, any future amendments that would be made to this should it become law can be done now without the bill going any further. The way it works an anti-gun senator or representative could decide right now to write a bill, or amend an existing one, so that the federal code would be ammended (should the bill pass) to the effect of "All licenses for concealed carry that will be used with handguns that have been a part of interstate commerce must have mandatory mental health testing requiring the license holder to be in perfect mental health." At this point every concealed carry license becomes invalid and unable to be "adjusted" to make it valid because no one can be in perfect mental health. So we should go ahead and try to make the progress we want NOW while we can, we just have to be careful not to let our own efforts to be used against us.

VMI77 wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I am certain the NRA has the same concerns as we do, and thanks to the NRA we have the ability to fight efforts to sabotage this bill. I would like to see national reciprocity but I will call for the bill to be killed should it be butchered in an unacceptable manner, just like I suspect the NRA would. Right now this bill looks to be a good thing, there is potential for bad things to be added and I promise that before it is over there will be attempts to do so. With that said this bill on it's own has minimal odds of becoming law because the White House will most likely veto it, as an amendment to a bill the president feels he can't live without we have a chance to get what we want. My thoughts on this particular bill go further than that, but I'm enjoying stirring the pot too much to give all my thoughts away right now.

If Obama signs it I'll take it as evidence that the Bill is actually a Trojan Horse for the anti-gunners. No doubt we need the NRA --I'm a member. But the NRA is not all powerful. I'm actually less concerned about the Bill that might pass now --I'm much more concerned about the precedent and how the Bill may be altered in the future. The left, however much they may oppose it now, and however sincere the opposition, will take their broken eggs and make an omlette with them --incrementally amending it to minimize opposition at each step.

What I see happening is a bundle of those above mentioned "common sense rules" being crafted as an omnibus amendment, and being slipped in at the last minute when they do the committee thing with the Senate (after behind-the-scenes approval from the WH) and then the Democrats saying "Why not pass this, you say the Republican Party cares about the Second Amendment"...if the Republicans pass the poisoned bill, the Democrats win, they then get control of concealed carry and can make it useless with OVER-REUGLATION...if they don't pass it, the Democrats use it to siphon off voters who will be told, LOUDLY IN THE MEDIA, that the Republicans really don't care about self-defense, Second Amendment, etc OR they don't care about "public safety" since all the regulations in the amendment are "commons sense". This thing is a bunch of trouble waiting to happen and the more I think about it (like was said in a comment further back), the more I don't like it, either. I DO NOT want to sacrifice what we Texans have for some shaky potential gains of a (few) states in reciprocity. If some states don't want me to be able to defend myself, I guess I just won't go there...I haven't lost anything in NJ that I need to go find there. However, I really would like to hear Mr. Cotton weigh in on this thing, as he is about as expert an opinion as we could get...

Heartland Patriot wrote:I really would like to hear Mr. Cotton weigh in on this thing, as he is about as expert an opinion as we could get...

I too would like to hear comments from Charles. He is close to the NRA and could give some insight as to what they are thinking by supporting this bill and all the possibilities of disaster pointed out in this thread.

Based on his comments, possibly he could give us some direction as to what our actions (if any) should be.

The right way to do it is add CHL as a category in LEOSA, along with current LEO and retired LEO. If the proposed bill is more complicated than that, I don't think much of the authors.

For the people who think this gives the feds power to regulate state CHL, where were you when CHL was added as an exemption to the Gun Free School Zone Act?

AEA wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I really would like to hear Mr. Cotton weigh in on this thing, as he is about as expert an opinion as we could get...

I too would like to hear comments from Charles. He is close to the NRA and could give some insight as to what they are thinking by supporting this bill and all the possibilities of disaster pointed out in this thread.

Based on his comments, possibly he could give us some direction as to what our actions (if any) should be.

I concur. While I see both good and bad with this bill, I would really like to "hear" Charles' observations.

AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... latestnews

From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

Just like they did with Miscegenation. That was the beginning of the destruction of marriage in this country. /s

ArmyStrong1969 wrote:

AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... latestnews

From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

Just like they did with Miscegenation. That was the beginning of the destruction of marriage in this country. /s

Does /s mean sarcasm?

...I don't want to give THEM the right to give ME the right...to do ANYTHING...I just want them to do their jobs and leave me alone out here in "bitter clinger land" to live happily...if the gooberment gives you a marshmallow...it's got a hook in it...when will we learn this???????

Dave2 wrote:

ArmyStrong1969 wrote:

AEA wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09 ... latestnews

From that POV, if the feds can force a state to accept another's CCW, they can force us to accept a gay marriage license.
Something to think about.

Just like they did with Miscegenation. That was the beginning of the destruction of marriage in this country. /s

Does /s mean sarcasm?

Yes, in most instances...it is known as a "sarc tag". I wanted to comment further, but this topic of national reciprocity is important enough in and of itself...

Adding CHL to LEOSA like Tbrown suggests won't give the Feds any more power then they already wield.

Denying reciprocity for a right enumerated in the US Constitution won't slow down people who have different tastes than you.

Article today
High Noon in the House
Posted: 10/17/11 02:22 PM ET
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carolyn-m ... tml?ref=tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Any article using the term

gun deaths

I just have to doubt. Why spend all the money for a gun to beat someone when baseball bats are cheaper. Maybe she means "bullet deaths"

tbrown wrote:The right way to do it is add CHL as a category in LEOSA, along with current LEO and retired LEO. If the proposed bill is more complicated than that, I don't think much of the authors.

The legislators and the GP(including people on this forum) won't even consider putting Correctional Officers, who deal with up to a few thousand felons a day, in the same category as LEOSA to allow themselves protection against retaliation why would they do it for a CHL holder???