facebook: /RepThomasMassie/posts/1843059172384905 (OP image is of post if you don't want to click facebook)
HR38 is going to get passed because it's hard for a pro-gun republican to oppose a bill for "concealed carry reciprocity", but it comes with some serious losses. > To recap, what are some clues that you should be concerned with the fix-NICS bill? > (1) The first sentence after the title of the bill reads “Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended…” > (2) Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are cosponsors in the Senate. > (3) It’s being rammed through, without a hearing, in a very nontransparent process, and it will be passed by attaching it to the popular concealed carry reciprocity bill which already has enough votes to pass on its own. > (4) It spends over half a billion dollars to collect more names to include in a list of people who will never be allowed to own a firearm. > (5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.
Nobody talking about this online. I hate RINOs so much. They didn't need the votes but they give up ground.
There's only one party in the Senate with a smattering of opposition in the house.
Juan Butler
I haven't read whats in it but I don't need to. If Feinstein is involved its bad news. Contact your senators people and tell them NO additions to the Carry Reciprocity
Alexander James
Trump will veto he’s pro 2a
Ryan Cook
Cosponsor list attached
You can see how dire this is. Look at all those R's. Disgusting.
Isaac Jenkins
Where were you when you realized there are no truly pro 2A politicians in DC?
Jaxson Powell
lefties will use this as >"see guys? even REPUBLICANS want more gun control. fruffmphff BTFO"
Carter Russell
Trump is a lifelong Democrat, as pro 2a as Obama
David Cox
i wouldn't count on him doing anything helpful/competent in the next three years. Remember how Reagan, a poster-boy republican, fucked over gun owners while he was in office
Nicholas Green
HAVE YOU FAGGOTS EVEN READ THE BILL IT'S NOT GUN CONTROL, IT'S MAKING SURE THE NICS IS KEPT UPDATED AND IMPOSING PENALTIES IF IT ISN'T
Lincoln Martinez
this no elected official has the general population's best interests in mind when they run for office >kill them all >kill the next set who run for office >imprison the 3rd set who run after that it's the only way to keep the system transparent
Ryan Russell
>IT'S NOT GUN CONTROL, IT'S MAKING SURE THE NICS IS KEPT UPDATED AND IMPOSING PENALTIES IF IT ISN'T >pretending NICS isn't garbage that should be gotten rid of
Anyway Trump's judicial picks will likely be taking big bites out of state and federal gun control in the next few decades. I'm looking forward to that.
Julian Wilson
He will do whatever the NRA says is a good idea to do.
John Gonzalez
So what's the bottom line then? Obviously its main purpose is to allow CC in all 50 states (just get an non-resident permit from Utah, etc). What do these supposed additions from Feinstein and co add?
Gavin Watson
We have been. Faggots like you keep fearmongering because the bill has been amended to:
1. actually force agencies/beauracracies to report prohibited persons to the FBI. As they fucking should be.
2. commission a study on "bump stocks". Which is going to be a great waste of money to prove to congress that they are used in essentially no crimes, and that making them illegal is stupid because you can just use a fucking belt loop or piece of string to make an MG anyways.
3. provide funding for these things.
In exchange we get national CCW reciprocity. No more "can't go here because i have to choose between defending myself and risking jail time".
It's literally a win-win for gun owners unless there's hidden text in there or other amendments get added. If anything at this point it looks like the Dems knew they were going to lose on this topic so they inserted some "reasonable restrictions" to save face with their base. They did after all conveniently choose to add the one measure of gun control that has shown bi-partisan support recently. Anything else would have amounted to a poison pill and probably resulted in another version being passed with no concessions in it at all.
Christian Baker
> 1. actually force agencies/beauracracies to report prohibited persons to the > FBI. As they fucking should be. You're missing the point, what happens when one of these agencies erroneously puts you on their list? Maybe you share the same name with someone who commits a crime. Where's the oversight? You're advocating for any given institution to have the ability to deny someone their second amendment RIGHT, without any day in court. This is an immense break from how things work today. You cannot find yourself on one of these lists without a day in court.
> 2. commission a study on "bump stocks". Which is going to be a great waste of > money to prove to congress that they are used in essentially no crimes, and that > making them illegal is stupid because you can just use a fucking belt loop or > piece of string to make an MG anyways. So you admit, it's a complete waste of money. You're okay with that? You want reciprocity so badly that you're willing to make deals with the devil. It's going to be yet another piece of propaganda that dems can point to. They're going to call for things like bullet buttons in order to stop big bad belt loops. This bill calls for over half a billion dollars of spending. I know it's not directly related to /k/ but the debt is a huge deal. Take a step back and ask yourself if you're really okay with over half a billion dollars being appropriated for government gun control programs. That money is not earmarked. It will end up doing many other things than just maintaining NICs lists.
Jacob Campbell
> In exchange we get national CCW reciprocity. No more "can't go here because i > have to choose between defending myself and risking jail time". States are already free to accept permits from other states. You don't understand the constitution. The bill of rights has been bastardized to be seen as a general agreement between everyone and everything, through a process called incorporation. Originally, the bill of rights was only a statement between the federal government and the people. The second amendment did not mean that states could not restrict your right to firearms, it just meant that the federal government could not do it. Some of the first states in this country had religious and racial tests to hold office, for example. The constitution said nothing about this, state constitutions had the freedom to create the society they wanted. Even if that means terrible things like banning weapons or mandating participation in a certain religion or racial tests for office, this is a good thing. States need the freedom to make bad laws so that the best laws can be found and implemented.
You need to see the writing on the wall. The closer we move towards comple te federal authority on gun issues, the easier it will be one day for them to pass a single federal law and have it affect all states. Don't set this precedent. There will come a day when democrats will hold office again, don't set the dominos up for them to knock over. Gun rights must completely remain a state issue, even if that means states don't need to respect permits for other states.
Lucas Young
>erroneously misidentified as a prohibited person You fucking appeal it like a regular person
>Are you okay with it being a waste of money? Yeah. Do you park 3 miles away rather than pay for parking at the stadium? It's a matter of expediency you dumb retard.
Robert Rogers
>Liberals learning how ineffective their proposed bans would be is a waste of money Think of it as an education fund
Jace Hernandez
>FOPA was fucking over gun owners fuck off with this bullshit, FOPA was actually extremely good
Ayden Ortiz
"muh shall not be infringed" crowd is getting mad because they allow perfect to be the enemy of the good.
welcome to the real world, you take what you can get, and this is the fucking best piece of firearms legislation we've had in ages. Frankly, unless I'm traveling to hunt or for a match, all my salt weapons live at home and I could give less fucks about what other states say for their own residents.
My handgun is what I actually take with me. This is huge.
Oliver Young
> You fucking appeal it like a regular person 1. You clearly don't understand what a natural right is. If your right can be taken away without a day in court, it's not a right. If you have to appeal some process to get a gun, you don't have a right to own a gun, it'd be a privilege. You're advocating for a bill where things could very clearly fall through the cracks and result in second amendment rights for certain americans being denied due to clerical mistakes, without warrant or reason. It's worse than if you were calling for the repealment of the second amendment, because at least that would leave the law in a sane state. Instead, you're calling for a bill that would keep the second amendment in place while allowing it to be completely side-skirted.
2. How do you appeal? Do you appeal directly to the agency that submitted your name? Do you have to sue the government? Realize what you're advocating here.
> Yeah. Do you park 3 miles away rather than pay for parking at the > stadium? It's a matter of expediency you dumb retard. You're a child. Your opinion isn't based in principle. You're okay with setting precedence where the federal government has complete authority over guns. I hope you remember this when they come back 10 years from now and ban guns at a federal level and there's nothing that can be done about it.
Ayden Gray
We should also attach the share act to this then at the last moment like these kikes did with the Hughes amendment.
Easton Diaz
>In exchange we get national CCW reciprocity I have a very bad feeling about this bill.
Some BS gun control state is going to sue, saying this is a violation of State's Rights, and they will win. But every other piece of shit in the bill will stand.
I want national carry. I want to carry into NJ, NYC, Commiefornia. But this bill is just shrouded in bad legislative process.
Ian Robinson
there's no clause allowing the two bills to be severable - they stand as one, knock down one the whole thing goes down
Luis Price
The world doesn't work that way and I'm sure you know it. They're never going to wake up one day and admit they're wrong because of a study. This can only end badly.
I'd like to reiterate that THEY ALREADY HAD THE VOTES BEFORE THIS AMENDMENT.
> "muh shall not be infringed" crowd is getting mad because they allow perfect to be the enemy of the good. > welcome to the real world, you take what you can get, and this is the fucking best piece of firearms legislation we've had in ages.
I'd like to reiterate that THEY ALREADY HAD THE VOTES BEFORE THIS AMENDMENT. There is NO REASON TO SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. And it HAS NOT PASSED YET.
You're advocating for something that dramatically changes the process in which you can end up on a no-buy list. Right now you shouldn't end up on the list without a day in court. After these amendments, that will certainly change. That is huge.
My big beef is with taking something that is currently a state isuse and making it a federal issue. This is not where we want the gun rights conversation to take place. There will come a day when dems are back in power. Don't set a precedence for centralized laws around guns. This will bite us back someday in the future.
Dominic Morales
>unironic autistic wall of text >hang on im gonna need a drink for this one >what happens when one of these agencies erroneously puts you on their list? Irrelevant and stupid. This already happens. you do the same thing you'd do now if that happened. >Where's the oversight? Same place it's always been. The ATF. >You're advocating for any given institution to have the ability to deny someone their second amendment RIGHT, without any day in court that simply isn't what this bill does, you're blatantly fear mongering about made up shit >This is an immense break from how things work today Do you even fucking know how the whole forbidden person thing works? >insane ramblings about fiscal responsibility and how the dems are gonna totes do this or that that isn't on the bill Dude, you might wanna go back on whatever meds you clearly stopped taking. Yes, 500 million dollars is completely worth nationwide CCW. No the study will not make for a good piece of propaganda. No, 500 million dollars isn't a big deal. >more insane ramblings about states rights, an unnecessary history lesson, and then the completely unfounded idea that a single bill forcing nationwide reciprocity will somehow lay the big next step in the gungrabbers plan States rights have been dead for at least 150 years now grampa. If you're mad that the feds can force you to hire a darkie, fuck your shit up over "interstate commerce", or enforce other basic human rights then you should either pick up a rifle or build a fucking time machine.
Sometimes having the big bad fed there for you is nice. Like when a state decides they don't think you deserve your constitutional rights, or to just murder you and steal your shit as they used to allow of unfavorables. None of this is really relevant to why this bill is good or bad though. It's passage won't effect how the fed is going to act in any fucking way.
Andrew Torres
>>what happens when one of these agencies erroneously puts you on their list? > Irrelevant and stupid. This already happens. you do the same thing > you'd do now if that happened. And that doesn't bother you? You're advocating for *expanding* instances of that unconstitutional situation?
>>Where's the oversight? >Same place it's always been. The ATF. You think the ATF is equipped to audit a list of millions of names and check for duplicates and mismatches and erroneous entries on the list? Get real. You just established above^^ that you don't give a shit about people having their rights denied, it's just a hoop to jump through. You're not addressing the real issue: You don't understand that a right has no meaning if it is not a true right; it must not be denied by default, for anyone.
> that simply isn't what this bill does, you're blatantly fear mongering > about made up shit that is EXACTLY what the bill does. Read the OP.
> When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he > implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the > Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit > lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to > be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a > firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a > military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any > significant period of time.
This is just an expansion of institutions that will also be forced to submit names to this list. Names that are not coming from a court, but administrative agencies.
Joseph Price
>In exchange we get national CCW reciprocity I'd rather have SHARE with the suppressor provisions. National reciprocity does a whole lot of fucking nothing.
I sincerely hope they aren't wasting political capital on reciprocity over SHARE, because this passing makes no difference in my everyday life.
Elijah Russell
what's with the shit formatting of that guy's posts ?
Asher Ross
Share is so much fucking better. Silencers Ap ammo Cheap commie steel core ammo No import bans based on bullshit sporting purpose crap(we get stg57s then) No more destructive devices for shotguns
Brandon Jones
>two kikes trying to take guns away from white men
James Foster
Oy vey that's just a cohencidence, goy.
Brody Young
penalties for police departments for not reporting domestic violence and other NCIS data with checkins
Zachary Howard
It would need 60 votes in the Senate.
1) It fails; 2) NICS amendment is removed; 3) it passes as is.
In order of likelihood. Taxes were McConnell's lone concession to Trump.
Jeremiah Martinez
Speak for yourselves. Being able to finally CC despite living in NJ would be great.
Christian Martin
>And that doesn't bother you?... No, not really. It's literally just the intersection of accidents will happen and reasonable restrictions. Some people aren't allowed to own guns, to enforce that a list of those people must be kept, occasionally somebody makes an accident. Not really a big deal. Certainly nothing that'll be changed by not having this bill. >Insane ramblings that display a complete lack of understanding in regards to the process of contesting a false NICS denial and trying to segway into some other argument about natural rights Kid, if you get denied and you arent a prohibited person then you call a fucking hotline and get it fixed. none of your nonsenical auditing a list of millions shit. >that is EXACTLY what the bill does. Read the OP. No it doesn't. It literally just makes agencies SHARE the lists of people that are prohibited persons. it doesn't empower them to arbitrarily declare people to be forbidden persons as you claim. The fuck are you even on, man. >more insane ramblings about how this is the same as a completely different EO from obama one, gimme a source on that, two, No.
Logan Evans
Specifically requires a ccw in your home state.
Isaac Lopez
the thing you're panicking about is already reality
I just write everything in vim and I keep textwidth=80 so that the lines don't get too long. Like you do on mailing lists. Sup Forums has terrible formatting and makes it possible for longs to be extremely long which makes it easy to get lost on what line you're on, sometimes you'll skip a line or read a line twice. I keep it around where a book or article would be, to make it easier to read. There's science behind it: journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071161
I'm panicking about it because it's about to get way way worse.
I'm done replying to you, you're not even making an effort to respond to my points. It should never be the case that someone who has done nothing wrong is denied their rights and has to get it fixed. You don't seem to appreciate this because you don't really understand what a right is. I know you probably hear that and think I mean, "You don't share the same opinion of what a right is that I have.", but that's not what I mean. I mean you don't understand the well established idea of what a natural right is. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke oll.libertyfund.org/pages/eric-mack-an-introduction-to-the-political-thought-of-john-locke
Parker Davis
You'd still be living in New Jersey. "Great" is not the word I'd use.
Angel Thomas
> No it doesn't. It literally just makes agencies SHARE the lists of people that > are prohibited persons. it doesn't empower them to arbitrarily declare people to > be forbidden persons as you claim. The fuck are you even on, man. I'm against these amendments because it's going to mandate that dozens of new institutions contribute to these lists, creating even more errors than there already are, furthering a problem that is, in principle, a very very big deal. The background check lists shouldn't come from anyone except courts. These institutions that are going to contribute to these lists have no legal authority to make a statement about your right to bear arms, yet we're codifying into law that they do. If that doens't bug you because you're soooo happy to be so close to being able to carry a gun in another state, I hope you realize that you're a complete fudd.
>> more insane ramblings about how this is the same as a completely different EO from obama >one, gimme a source on that, two, No. nice argument. This is the same as that EO because it gives even more institutions the authority to add to lists that only courts should maintain. How is this so hard for you to get?
Tyler Diaz
>I just type like a fag, and claim it makes my retarded shit easier to read.
Thomas Brown
I don't understand your argument, are you referencing the supremacy clause?
Ryan Taylor
>You're missing the point, what happens when one of these agencies erroneously puts you on their list?
You mean just like all the other times that could happen even without this bill?
Charles Perez
Yeah, this doesn't actually change anything about clerical errors fucking people over, that was already a thing and it won't get worse with this bill
Anthony Cruz
This is like the 5th time I've seen this argument in this thread. Saying that it already happens is not an argument for making things worse, you idiots.
And I guess I have to say it again: This is not a trade-off. We don't need these NICs amendments to pass reciprocity. It would get passed either way. It has the votes in the senate and house. Stop being such pussies and accepting unconstitutional gun control legislation when we have the white house and the house and senate. Fight for your rights you fudds.
Mason Scott
how will this make it worse
Liam Walker
> it won't get worse with this bill What? Of course it will get worse. It /can only/ get worse.
Blake Wood
If social security still has the ability to deny NICS based on section 12.00 as they did back in December, then this isn't adding a single capability to any agency.
Ayden Young
>We don't need these NICs amendments to pass reciprocity. Depends entirely if the Dems are going to fillabuster again like they did the last time Cornyn tried reciprocity. (By the way, if the tax bill was so onerous, why no fillabuster there, Dems?)
If no fillabuster, yay team. If they will fillabuster, I'd prefer Cornyn's bill instead of this one to get some Dems on board.
Oliver Peterson
Is that not obvious?
Charles Long
How the hell does this warrant explanation? The list is going to grow immensely because the law mandates that states implement programs to contribute names -- not necessarily coming from courts either. What would possibly make you think that the these new contributors to the list are going to have a smaller percentage of false entries than the list has now?
As the list grows by tens of thousands of names, there can only be more overlap when it comes to same-name issues. Things can only get worse.
Colton Clark
... the supremacy clause has nothing to do with anything. The bill of rights is not a federal law. The supremacy clause does not apply to the bill of rights or any other unenumerated rights left to the people. Incorporation took place through the 14th amendment.
>law mandates that states implement programs to contribute names How can someone who clearly loves the greatest text editor of all time be so wrong (and so unsourced)?
According to the text of the bill online, Federal agencies are only required to report people falling under law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
Caleb Anderson
>I'm done replying to you, you're not even making... Im well aware of what a natural right is and the way in which you're trying to change an argument about the specifics of what a certain bill does and does not do into some sort of fucking pointless argument about rights, humanity, and the place of the state. Meanwhile you seem to have a partial understanding at best and say stupid shit about them like "a natural right cant be taken away" which is objectively false. Im not really fucking interested to be frank. > These institutions aint got no right to be arbitrarily denying yo rights They aren't. We're talking about things like the VA not fucking telling the feds about dishonorable discharges and mental illness. Show me where in the bill this is going to suddenly allow organizations to arbitrarily deny rights when the clear wording of the bill is for them to share the lists of people that have already been denied these rights that they have on hand. > to add to lists... you keep saying this shit man. They aren't adding to lists. the lists already exist. these people are already by and large legitimate prohibited persons that were simply not shared with the feds. Sure, there may be a fraction of a percent that are erroneously denied, but that sure as shit doesn't make up for the other 99% that are legitimate forbidden persons let alone national reciprocity. Plus, it's the fucking nature of the beast that is already codified law.
You're entire argument seems to be a slippery slope combined with "but what about the teensy tiny fraction of false denials!". which you're actively trying to conflate and imply is actually "but now every agency in the government can put anybody on a list for any reason and take away their right!!!"
Noah Jackson
Did you run out of ativan or quetiapine? Your arguments and counterpoints are seemingly emotion-based bordering on paranoia. The use of carriage returns instead of just typing out sentences is off-putting as well. Your all-or-nothing approach is a detriment to your argument and is giving off a totalitarian vibe, which is the exact opposite of what this country was founded on.
David Hill
You folks from /k/?
Jackson Edwards
yes it was moved from /k/
Christian Lewis
Shame the mods cracked down on you guys for talking about board subject matter over there.
Noah Bennett
i'm not wrong. 922 (g) and (n) don't make any statement about convictions. If some federal agency has reason to believe you are an unlawful user of a drug, in spite of the fact that you have never been convicted, you could be denied your second amendment right. law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922
I never said a natural right can't be taken away. I said: > If your right can be taken away without a day in court, it's not a > right. and what I meant is that the government cannot reasonably claim to protect a negative right if it can be taken away without having done something wrong.
It's been clear that you're not interested in having a conversation at that level about the maintenance of the law. You're like a child who has peeked under the wrapping paper of his presents and now can't wait to have them. You want reciprocity so badly that you don't care what bullshit they stuff into the bill, you just want it and you want it now. You don't seem to realize that years from now, this principled conversation will certainly actualize, to some degree, into law. Be ready for that, you fudd.
Benjamin Davis
Three months isn't that big of a deal in that case, as the article said that 2015-2016 were years of massive gun buying.
Jace Ross
>> Show me where in the bill this is going to suddenly allow organizations to arbitrarily deny rights when the clear wording of the bill is for them to share the lists of people that have already been denied these rights that they have on hand.
> “(iii) CONTENTS.—A certification required under clause (i) shall state, for > the applicable period—
> “(I) the total number of records of the Federal department or agency > demonstrating that a person falls within one of the categories described in > subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code;
> “(II) for each category of records described in subclause (I), the total > number of records of the Federal department or agency that have been provided to > the Attorney General; and
> “(III) the efforts of the Federal department or agency to ensure complete and > accurate reporting of relevant records, including efforts to monitor compliance > and correct any reporting failures or inaccuracies.
a record of a 922 (g) violation does not necessarily mean a day in court or conviction came. It skirts around the courts.
Mason Young
>Sure, there may be a fraction of a percent that are erroneously denied, but that sure as shit doesn't make up for the other 99% that are legitimate forbidden persons let alone national reciprocity. Plus, it's the fucking nature of the beast that is already codified law.
rights aren't supposed to work this way. Like I said in , this isn't just some philosophical debate that doesn't mean anything. In the grand scheme of things, disrespect for things like the sanctity of a right and what allows it to be denied will come back to haunt you. Rights have to be absolute. They can be taken away, but it's a huge leap to give the authority to deny a right to institutions that have no legal authority.
> You're entire argument seems to be a slippery slope combined with "but what about the teensy tiny fraction of false denials!". which you're actively trying to conflate and imply is actually "but now every agency in the government can put anybody on a list for any reason and take away their right!!!" you're either purposefully misrepresenting my argument or just don't understand it.
give me a break with your strawman and call your fucking senator.
fuck the /k/ mods.
Christopher Cox
Quality post, People need to share this far and wide and call your representatives.
Chase Howard
thanks for the bump
Jack White
>> passing laws against gun ownership and self defense
I dont give 2 shits what bill they pass. I will always concealed carry. If that makes me a criminal i do not care. All that would do is force me to defend myself against law enforcement bots that intend to deprive me of my human right of self defense.
You dont want that. Cops dont want that. And when enough of us get sick of it we will eventually seek out those politicians who caused this strife and end them with prejudicial and ruthless violence
Kayden Cox
Show proof dipshit
Easton Scott
If you write your ssn on the 4473 this becomes a non issue
Owen Cruz
I don't think I've ever seen such an ass-backwards attempt to castrate the Bill of Rights.
By your logic, the federal government can't torture me, but Maryland can.
Take your (you) and fuck off.
Sebastian Young
> By your logic, the federal government can't torture me, but Maryland can. ... Maryland can pursue the death penalty for crimes that the federal government wouldn't consider a capital crime. You don't understand our government.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: > No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...[6]
Later, unfortunately, the 14th amendment was shoved through during reconstruction. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: > [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...[7]
That was necessary to pass because it wasn't understood to work that way before then.
Amendments can be voted out of the bill. Any fuckin senator with an opinion can propose an amendment
Asher Carter
look at the list of cosponsors this shit is not just feinstein and schumer.
Aiden Miller
Supreme court has held that the death penalty is not cruel nor unusual.
The Bill of Rights is there highest law of the land.
Xavier Richardson
lol someones thread got moved here OP btfo
Nolan Peterson
>922 (g) and (n) don't make any statement about convictions. Dude, doesn't that look familiar. That is the 4473 form, i.e. already law today. By your own reasoning, congrats, the IRS can declare you addicted to opioids right this minute.
Luis James
self check out
Landon Johnson
The bill of rights is not a law it is an enumeration of inalienable rights. You're missing the point: the constitution and the bill of rights that were enumerated were solely a statement by the federal government about what rights the states and people had. As originally interpreted, The bill of rights did not prevent the states from denying the people those same rights like freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc. etc. etc.
Chase Wood
apparently you did not read the same fucking post i did.
nics is garbage, get rid of it.
Brayden Smith
The way it's supposed to work is that the list of people who fall under 4473 ought to be decided by a court to fall under those rules. That's not how it works today because things are already corrupt, but in principle that's how it should work.
The point i'm trying to make is that the concealed carry reciprocity bill is being fucked with to make the situation even worse and mandate that even more institutions that are not courts have to publish lists of people that should be on these lists.
Ian Myers
Yeah, this bill sounds like bullshit. I think my senator already apposes it. My other senator is going to be elected next week so I have to wait and see who it is.
