So the H.R.38 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 passed the House votes today.
It moves on to the Senate and needs 60 votes to go to Trump's Desk.
What are the chances this passes? There are many democrats in red states up for reelection in 2018.
Not great. RINOs and blue dogs are going to help each other out and engineer things to cut off the votes at 59. "SO CLOSE, BUT LOOK HOW HARD WE TRIED! =) "
More importantly, what are the chances we get a great false flag mass shooting?
Blue - 2 Democrat Senators
Red - 3 Republican Senators
Purple - 1 Republican senator and 1 Democrat Senator
Green - Independent (both liberal)
2* Republican Senators
>tfw Bob Casey there for like 60 years unopposed
>tfw Pat Toomie a shit but what else are you going to do
PA needs some HIGH ENERGY
Can someone explain to me how North Dakota and Montana have Democrats in office? Yet NM and Virginia are full blue?
If an user can link to me a basic understanding of the US Senate i would love it.
HAHA CA is going to be so fucking salty when I start CCW'ing with my non-resident AZ license
low chances. Your leader gave in to their demands about the capital.
Fuck state's rights, amirite?
Yes, if they are being restrictive then fuck them.
Zero percent this clears the Senate. There just aren't the votes available to get this to pass, and the party line is clear on this one. You have 52 R's and 3 or so Dems that would even consider it, with maybe one actually voting in favor of it.
None, you stupid faggot.
>fuck state tyranny, amirite?
yes that's right you dirty commie, fuck tyranny right up the ass
Oh, I'm totally okay with it. The pendulum always swings back and this sets good precedent. I'm sure Texas and Alabama will love some New York and California laws applied to their residents.
Zero chance.
Not 1 dem will vote for it.
Gee all states have to follow the Constitution? God forbid
3 dems voted for the House bill, so there IS a chance, however small.
But lets be honest, dems are spineless fucking cucks, unless they get paid off, it aint happening.
HOLY SHIT
>it's the dentures
>i thought he had dementia all along
>1 in 65 people gets it I PRAY IT ISN'T
jesus fucking christ these canned responses
>implying
You can purchase guns in all states. What are you talking about?
Some places try to make it as much hell to do it as they can. I mean look at cali restricting just about everything about a gun.
And? You can still purchase guns in all states, and that has nothing to do with concealed carry. If you need to "bear your arms to fight tyranny" you can have a gun readily available in you safe or closet. This is a fact regardless of state.
You mean like we already are forced to with the gay marriage bullshit? Because this is directly related to that. You can't have it both ways. Either states have the right to define marriage as they please and control of their concealed carry OR all states must obey the same laws on gay marriage AND concealed carry reciprocity. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Personally I would prefer full states' rights, but that ship has already sailed. Yield the gay marriage bullshit and we'll call it a wash.
Somalis and such being shipped in.
lol i actually know the democrat who ran against Toomie i talked to her all the time. She is a nice lady but her cuck husband allowed her to adopt POOs her daughter went to prom with a nigger
I don't think the government should recognize marriage at all. I have no problem with wiping it all away. Neither is constitutional.
Instead of trying to fuck over state's rights, those Congressmen should've pushed for a Constitutional Amendment to either define marriage or prohibit homosexuality. Two wrongs don't make a right, so abusing the law even further is good because...?
and if tyranny includes roadblocks to conduct warrantless search and seizure of illegal arms that we have the right to keep and bear?
This was already addressed in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. You are free to transport the firearms you own across state lines.
I didn't look into her too much but on the surface at least she didn't seem too far off the deep end.
Because we do not live in a world of fluffy kittens and rainbows. We fight for our rights because the other side is sure as shit fighting to take them away. Is it a scummy move? Yes. Is it better than laying down and letting them strip us of our defenses? Hell yes. This at least gives some semblance of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms back to the people.
>states should have the right to suppress constitutional rights
Lmao I'm laughing at what a faggot you are
>The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.[1]
Attach to the bill a 100$ Tax credit to educate niggers about the dangers of shooting sideways. That way when the democrats vote no they can say “why do democrats hate the black family so much!?”
Guilt those unamerican communist motherfuckers into giving what should have always BEEN constitutionally sound law.
Am I missing something here? Why does it need 60 votes when the gop tax plan just needed a majority in the Senate?
>Maine
That's a Constitutional Carry state what the fuck are they doing
And why didn't you describe the act beyond its name?
QRD now
can someone tell me what's happening with the bill I heard about to catalog all ammunition and restrict a bunch of weapon attachments or confirmation it's real ?
>Instead of trying to fuck over state's rights, those Congressmen should've pushed for a Constitutional Amendment to either define marriage or prohibit homosexuality.
You shouldn't have to. The power of controlling those in the Constitution are considered "reserved to the states respectively, or the people".
They aren't protected, the state via their state legislature and popular methods(such as California's referendum system with their innumerable propositions) can decide how to manage those things.
Guys this is a bad bill. Dems tagged a subsection that compels administrative institutions to expand and enlargen the nics background check system. It basically allows adminstrative entities to remove your 2nd amendment, without a trial in front of a judge. Any Rep legislator who supports it is either too lazy to read or too (((lazy))) to read it.
> 60 votes
fillibuster? Or are the Senate Rules even weirder than I thought?
> if they don't get fillibustered there's a pretty good chance
States have the right to make their own laws, so long as it doesn't supercede the constitution.
Right aside, it also makes sense.