djw2033 28 Posted January 3, 2017 I know they just got sworn in today with a huge to-do list .. whats the feeling of when this would make it to the floor.. this month/before inauguration ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 3, 2017 Obama care is 1st Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
45Doll 5,848 Posted January 3, 2017 It's been introduced. Day one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 3, 2017 This would mean that even law abiding individuals who are residents in tough restrictive gun law states like Maryland, California, and New York, for example, can use a non-resident concealed carry permit from another state, like Utah, to conceal carry in their own state. Holy crap. I think that might be reaching too far and make it harder to pass. But if it goes through, it's the whole enchilada. But I also wonder if it makes it more susceptible to legal challenge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LostinNJ 4 Posted January 4, 2017 Friends, I just had a back-and-forth with Kerry Picket of the Daily Caller. Here is a link to the newly revised bill: https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Con...0of%202017.pdf The new bill deletes the line that would have limited the reciprocal right to carry to non-residents. a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any 9 State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided 10 in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements 11 of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal 12 law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving 13 a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document 14 containing a photograph of the person, and who is car 15rying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant 16 to the law of a State and which permits the person to 17 carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a con 18 cealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, 19 may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a 20 machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped 21 or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any 22 State that— ‘‘(1) has a statute under which residents of the 24 State may apply for a license or permit to carry a 25 concealed firearm; or ‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed 2 firearms by residents of the State for lawful pur 3poses. This from Kerry of the Daily Caller: I updated my first piece to address this issue. A congressional source told me this: "an individual from one of those states may obtain a non-resident CCP from a state that recognizes the right to carry. All CCP holders (whether resident or non-resident) still have to abide by all the laws of the state in which they are carrying concealed." Here is a pull from her new story, posted today: This would mean that even law abiding individuals who are residents in tough restrictive gun law states like Maryland, California, and New York, for example, can use a non-resident concealed carry permit from another state, like Utah, to conceal carry in their own state. If this language survives the bill's arduous journey, we will finally be able to carry in our own state. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LostinNJ 4 Posted January 4, 2017 Let's try that link again: https://hudson.house.gov/uploads/Concealed%20Carry%20Reciprocity%20Act%20of%202017.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted January 4, 2017 http://gph.is/XLlIZH Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted January 4, 2017 This looks good: This would mean that even law abiding individuals who are residents in tough restrictive gun law states like Maryland, California, and New York, for example, can use a non-resident concealed carry permit from another state, like Utah, to conceal carry in their own state. Now back to reality: Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a strident gun control advocate, said any kind of national reciprocity bill would be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber. We need 8 senators (assuming all Republicans vote yes). Gun-friendly states with one democratic senator are Nevada, Colorado, Montana, N. Dakota, Missouri, W. Va., Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine, NH, Florida. NM has two democrats. Liberal IL and WI also have two. Only need 8 of 14 from gun-friendly states for this to pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 4, 2017 I guess they are getting this ready for the new pen. Holy chit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djw2033 28 Posted January 4, 2017 So what's the guess here 3ish months if passes ? Any chance at a fast track before 1/20? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1Thumb 30 Posted January 4, 2017 Negative on the fast track. I'm guessing this will end up in several committees. I'm not an attorney, but I believe there may be constitutionality problems with this bill, specifically regarding states' rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djw2033 28 Posted January 4, 2017 what do you mean by several committees? NRA was a big donater and are going to expect something relatively soon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1Thumb 30 Posted January 4, 2017 Bills tend to go through committees and subcommittees for analysis before heading to the President's desk. Bills can be in committee purgatory for months or even years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LostinNJ 4 Posted January 4, 2017 More to Like About the Hudson Bill The Hudson Bill limits enforceable gun-free zones, and eviscerates state mag and ammo laws. Limits on enforceable gun-free zones: There will be no "death by a thousands cuts." Under section (b) the only enforceable state/local laws are "laws of any State that -- " 1) permit private persons or entities to pro- 7 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms 8 on their property; or 9 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire- 10 arms on any State or local government property, in- 11 stallation, building, base, or park. So, there could be "force of law" no-carry signs on local businesses. And there could be gun-free zones ON state or local property. But note that it says "ON." Meaning, no bans within 5,000 ft of schools type laws. The biggest problem here would be bans on carry on public transportation. But all in all, section (b) makes effective bans through onerous state carry restrictions impossible. Eviscerates state mag and ammo laws: Love this! Section (e) defines terms in Section (a), including: 3 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine 4 for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded 5 into the handgun or its magazine. "Any magazine," and "any ammunition." I suppose this could be better drafted to include "any number of bullets in any magazine." But I believe the intent is clear. And for those of us in New Jersey, the whole hollow-point carry ban would be moot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LostinNJ 4 Posted January 4, 2017 Now back to reality: Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a strident gun control advocate, said any kind of national reciprocity bill would be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber. We need 8 senators (assuming all Republicans vote yes). Gun-friendly states with one democratic senator are Nevada, Colorado, Montana, N. Dakota, Missouri, W. Va., Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine, NH, Florida. NM has two democrats. Liberal IL and WI also have two. Only need 8 of 14 from gun-friendly states for this to pass. I think we get eight. 23 Dems are up for re-election in 2018; and 10 of those are from Trump states. Check out this list: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/306210-10-senate-seats-that-could-flip-in-2018 And even if we can't get eight, I think we have the political capital to have this bill passed within a budget bill via reconciliation; or even by nuking a filibuster. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
louu 399 Posted January 4, 2017 LostinNJ I love your enthusiasm, if more people around here were like you this bill would definitely pass. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 4, 2017 This looks good: This would mean that even law abiding individuals who are residents in tough restrictive gun law states like Maryland, California, and New York, for example, can use a non-resident concealed carry permit from another state, like Utah, to conceal carry in their own state. Now back to reality: Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a strident gun control advocate, said any kind of national reciprocity bill would be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber. We need 8 senators (assuming all Republicans vote yes). Gun-friendly states with one democratic senator are Nevada, Colorado, Montana, N. Dakota, Missouri, W. Va., Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Maine, NH, Florida. NM has two democrats. Liberal IL and WI also have two. Only need 8 of 14 from gun-friendly states for this to pass. Screw that. Obamacare wasn't passed with 60 votes. Ram it down their throats. Negative on the fast track. I'm guessing this will end up in several committees. I'm not an attorney, but I believe there may be constitutionality problems with this bill, specifically regarding states' rights. States have no rights. They only have powers. The federal government has limited their own powers to what is Constitutionally dictated only when it suited them. It's simply a piece of paper they ignore. 95% of federal laws are illegal. The only purpose our Constitution serves in this lawless system of government is to inspire the People to fight back. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtonian 453 Posted January 4, 2017 Screw that. Obamacare wasn't passed with 60 votes. Ram it down their throats. States have no rights. They only have powers. The federal government has limited their own powers to what is Constitutionally dictated only when it suited them. It's simply a piece of paper they ignore. 95% of federal laws are illegal. The only purpose our Constitution serves in this lawless system of government is to inspire the People to fight back. 1. As I recall there was some procedural trick. If still available by all means let's use it. 2. Frankly I don't know the difference but the "power" of states to control gun laws within their borders within broad readings of the 2nd Amendment has never, to my knowledge, been over-ruled. 3. Troo dat on the Constitution, with the effect that it is whateverthefuck they say it is. One of my defining philosophic moments came when I heard someone, maybe Bork, say "The word abortion does not appear in the constitution." For that matter neither does gay marriage or gay birthday cakes but here we are. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LostinNJ 4 Posted January 4, 2017 LostinNJ I love your enthusiasm, if more people around here were like you this bill would definitely pass. Perhaps it's because I've only suffered under New Jersey's tyranny for the past five years. I can still taste the relative freedom of my native Michigan. I want my freedom back; even if I'm stuck in New Jersey! 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 4, 2017 1. As I recall there was some procedural trick. If still available by all means let's use it. 2. Frankly I don't know the difference but the "power" of states to control gun laws within their borders within broad readings of the 2nd Amendment has never, to my knowledge, been over-ruled. 3. Troo dat on the Constitution, with the effect that it is whateverthefuck they say it is. One of my defining philosophic moments came when I heard someone, maybe Bork, say "The word abortion does not appear in the constitution." For that matter neither does gay marriage or gay birthday cakes but here we are. Yes, it was procedural, and yes it can be done again. It will come with a political cost. They may need it to get rid of Obamacare and may not have the balls to do it twice. Rights are innate. Powers are delegated by the People on a temporary basis. Your #3 answered your #2 question. The court has "incorporated" most of the Bill of Rights against the States, a power they do not have, to include the 2A. And, as you noted, the federal government does whatever they want. So any remaining questions in #2 are not very important when it comes down to it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
M1Thumb 30 Posted January 4, 2017 If this passes, states will fight it tooth and nail. I foresee years of lawsuits. Ultimately, this may end up in the SCOTUS, which is why Trump really needs to get busy nominating someone to replace Scalia. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Indianajonze 379 Posted January 4, 2017 Negative on the fast track. I'm guessing this will end up in several committees. I'm not an attorney, but I believe there may be constitutionality problems with this bill, specifically regarding states' rights. i disagree. states have no individual right to restrict the constitution. it's like saying states have the right to legislate free speech. they can try, but federal law (constitution) has jurisdiction Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mipafox 438 Posted January 4, 2017 Obama care is 1st There are two competing forces in effect here. They are saying the current plan is to cancel Obamacare postdated. Pass the law now to end it in the future. Then pass additional law(s) between now and then to replace it with whatever nonsense they can come up with. So it might not take a lot of time. On the other hand, control of the presidency and both houses of Congress is usually precarious. Republicans are going to piss off a lot of Dems this year, as if they weren't pissed already. Something may give in the 2018 elections, although mid-term is where Rs usually hold the advantage. Come the end of 2017, when we've pissed off half the voters in the country, some of Congress is going to have to start campaigning and they will be VERY reluctant to piss off anyone else. This means we probably have about a year to get done what we want, unless we get lucky in 2018 and are granted another year. This is why Dems did not ban guns in 2009. Trust me, we came close to a gun ban. They were deciding whether to ban guns or create Obamacare. They knew if they did both it would hurt reelection chances in 2010, and they knew there might not be time to do both before they lost party support for controversial legislation leading up to 2010 elections. Obama made the call - we are doing Obamacare, we will ban guns in 2011 if things go our way. Obama and his Obamacare saved us from a gun ban. Do not look at the 2013 gun legislation effort for comparison, because Rs held the House. Blue dog dems were not going to stick their necks out for bills that would never become law. It's a lot different when you have majorities in both houses and the presidency, your ass will be grass if you are the guy that gets in the way of your party's effort (with respect to Dems). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 4, 2017 There are two competing forces in effect here. They are saying the current plan is to cancel Obamacare postdated. Pass the law now to end it in the future. Then pass additional law(s) between now and then to replace it with whatever nonsense they can come up with. So it might not take a lot of time. On the other hand, control of the presidency and both houses of Congress is usually precarious. Republicans are going to piss off a lot of Dems this year, as if they weren't pissed already. Something may give in the 2018 elections, although mid-term is where Rs usually hold the advantage. Come the end of 2017, when we've pissed off half the voters in the country, some of Congress is going to have to start campaigning and they will be VERY reluctant to piss off anyone else. This means we probably have about a year to get done what we want, unless we get lucky in 2018 and are granted another year. This is why Dems did not ban guns in 2009. Trust me, we came close to a gun ban. They were deciding whether to ban guns or create Obamacare. They knew if they did both it would hurt reelection chances in 2010, and they knew there might not be time to do both before they lost party support for controversial legislation leading up to 2010 elections. Obama made the call - we are doing Obamacare, we will ban guns in 2011 if things go our way. Obama and his Obamacare saved us from a gun ban. Do not look at the 2013 gun legislation effort for comparison, because Rs held the House. Blue dog dems were not going to stick their necks out for bills that would never become law. It's a lot different when you have majorities in both houses and the presidency, your ass will be grass if you are the guy that gets in the way of your party's effort (with respect to Dems). 6h6 hours agoDonald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Republicans must be careful in that the Dems own the failed ObamaCare disaster, with its poor coverage and massive premium increases...... 6hrs ago.... Maybe he's got more of a hardon for the 2nd.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeerSlayer 241 Posted January 4, 2017 No hollow points.Critical Defense. State police issued an opinion that they're not hollow points at some point in time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 4, 2017 I'm not sure about you guys but I'm excited. It will be a battle for sure. But, this is a rilly big deal. You think Pardon Christie is going to direct his ag to fight this? I think not Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DeerSlayer 241 Posted January 4, 2017 From a NJ gun page on Facebook. This person has been having email correspondence with Representative Hudson, about his bill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- *copied from Facebook* Just Re-posting for new members and for those who did not see or read it the first time, Also I have two more emails out to his office and I'm awaiting his reply. Everyone the following is full detail of my email messages and replies to and from Congressman Hudson’s office. Note: other than personal info of mine in which I removed - his office's replies to me are WORD for WORD. I still feel it leaves the door open, but I don't think NJ will see his bill the way he see's his bill... Enjoy the read...............and feel free to add any thoughts....................... (me) Dec 6th 2016 8:36am Dear Congressman Hudson I'm messaging you about the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017. Love your Idea, however I have a few questions. Me along with NJSARF group and the others ask that you add a provision in the new bill that will cover Non-Resident Carry Permits . We ask this Because NJ has unconstitutional laws that in a way keep NJ residents from getting a permit, in NJ you can apply, and you could get one, but the Admin Code keeps 99.97% of NJ residents from being issued one, Now NJ resident normally get N.H. and Utah Non-resident Permits that will allow us to carry in 33 states, but since NJ does not have a reciprocity agreement with ANY state we can't carry in NJ. But your bill, will allow anyone who has a carry permit from their home state to carry in all 50 states and DC. But not NJ residents. Leaving NJ residents at risk, as you will have tons of people that travel come to our state armed, but our own residents will not be. So you Bill Needs to include, that All Non-residents Permits that are issued with a photo on the ID, will be also honored in any state. Under the 14thAmendment. (The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws) thanks please get back to me.... I also mailed a letter to his DC office that was a lot long and more detailed. (Hudson) Dec. 13th 2016 10:48 a, Hey, John – Thanks for your note. Under the bill I plan to introduce next month, a non-resident concealed carry permit will qualify. Hope this addresses your concerns. Thanks again, Richard (me) Dec. 13th 2016 10:55 am Dear Congressman Hudson Thank you for your reply, everyone in NJ has been debating about your bill, as many of us believe the wording would NOT help NJ residents with Non-Resident carry permits. But based on what you just messaged me, your bill will 100% include non-resident permits, right? (Hudson) Dec. 13th 2016 11:47 am Hey, John – That's correct - it will include non-resident permits. Thanks again, Richard (me) Dec. 14th 2016 3:03 pm Dear Congressman Hudson and or his office, I am so sorry to bother you again; however I posted on the NJ2A community page on what you told me. However after 125 likes and comments the census was that your bill will not help NJ residents. And even if it did that NJ would fight it in court for so long it would just die out anyway. The big concern is even though NJ does have a carry statue, which is one of the requirements of your bill, because of the Justifiable need code in NJ the avg. person is deprived of their 2nd amendment rights to Keep and Bear arms, outside the home. So most Guns owner in NJ have went to a carry class and got a Nonresident carry permit from say Utah. This permit will let NJ residents carry in 33 states "BUT NOT NJ", our home state. Our NJ2A community has ask me to ask you a straight forward question. Will your bill allow or force NJ to honor (NJ residents) who have a Non-Resident carry permit? Meaning will your bill let a NJ resident carry a handgun legally within NJ, by using a Non-NJ resident carry permit.,As long as the permit has a photo on it? IF not this is a 14th amendment lawsuit as non-resident of NJ would have more rights than the own citizens on NJ. I know your busy but please reply to me, Thanks John. (his office) Dec. 15, 2016 4:41pm Dear John – Thanks for reaching out. My name is Tatum and I'm Rep. Hudson's communications director. I understand your concerns and have spoken with our legislative staff. To answer your question, yes. Under the bill Rep. Hudson plans to introduce, a NJ resident can carry legally within NJ by using a non-resident carry permit with a valid identification document containing a photograph. All concealed carry permit holders must follow the laws of the state in which they are carrying concealed. I hope this answers your question. Thanks again, Tatum (me) Dec. 16th 10:32am Dear Tatum Gibson, Again on behalf of all of us, the NJ2AS and the NJ2AF and Myself we thank you and Congressman Hudson for your replies. But is there anything you can send us in writing that would state your office's claim. AS like I stated some members of our group are concerned based on the version of his bill that was released. Please let me know. John – (his office) Dec. 16, 2016 11:09 am Dear John – Here's part of the bill text we plan to introduce that should address your concerns -> “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section), a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying "a" valid identification document containing "a photograph of the person", and who is carrying "a" valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitle to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence or licensure of the person, that…” I hope that Helps, Tatum. (me) Dec. 16th 11:22am Dear Tatum, Thanks again, But doesn't that leave the state to interpret that differently than it is intended. In Congressman's view "If" it passes, is there a way a state LIKE NJ could decide NOT to follow the law? because of the wording in the bill can be misinterpreted? Thanks John, UPDATE: (Tatum) Dec. 16th 2016 11:46am Dear John - We have reached out to legislative counsel who has confirmed this for us. I will have my legislative staff reach out to legislative counsel again to triple check, but it is our understanding that the wording of the bill makes it crystal clear that a NJ resident can carry legally within NJ by using a non-resident carry permit with a valid identification document containing a photograph. All concealed carry permit holders must follow the laws of the state in which they are carrying concealed. Also, Gun Owners of America has said this about our bill, "Second, the Hudson bill benefits citizens of anti-gun states who get permits from pro-gun states. So if a gun owner living in “occupied” California, New Jersey, or New York gets a carry permit from Utah, then he or she will be able to carry a firearm in any state in the country!" Thanks again, Tatum https://m.facebook.com/groups/353517724790801?view=permalink&id=841106682698567 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xXxplosive 822 Posted January 4, 2017 If this is true.....................Bring it on !!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zeke 5,504 Posted January 4, 2017 If this is true.....................Bring it on !!!!No " now is the time..." ? That was your trademark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites