Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
National Reciprocity
#11
I'd like to see all the bills as stand alone. It would cut out all the crap going on.
Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#12
Just curious, trying to figure out what the issue is with the NICS Fix Bill? Understand, if I had it my way, the whole NICS system would be gone. Yet, this bill seems to force agencies that should be reporting to it, to actually report to it. I don't see it changing the requirements/qualifications of who can or cannot buy a firearm. I know several amendments were proposed and all them defeated. The reality is no law should be need, but that isn't the current reality even though the Constitution is clear on the matter.

Just trying to get an understanding.
Reply
#13
(12-07-2017, 03:48 AM)Ronin.45 Wrote: I don't even want the national reciprocity bill to advance if they are going to tack other bullshit onto it. We can't get ahead by losing one thing to gain another.

Agreed 100%. Either keep it original or just drop it. Anything more or less is another gun control law.
In The Age Of Information, Ignorance Is A Choice.
Reply
#14
(12-07-2017, 11:32 AM)bmyers Wrote: Just curious, trying to figure out what the issue is with the NICS Fix Bill? Understand, if I had it my way, the whole NICS system would be gone. Yet, this bill seems to force agencies that should be reporting to it, to actually report to it. I don't see it changing the requirements/qualifications of who can or cannot buy a firearm. I know several amendments were proposed and all them defeated. The reality is no law should be need, but that isn't the current reality even though the Constitution is clear on the matter.

Just trying to get an understanding.

I agree that, under the current system, getting all agencies to cooperate on NICS is not a bad thing. The problem I've heard is that it also tries to redefine some of the "prohibited person" language that would strip rights from certain folks without cause.
Reply
#15
I haven't been following this that closely (but should be), where is it at right now in Congress? How's it looking?
Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#16
Less than a 50% chance that it will make it out of the Senate.

Sadly, the Republicans will say that they got it passed in the House and tried in the Senate, the Democrats will take credit for blocking it in the Senate and we will end up getting screwed in the end.
Reply
#17
If only we had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate...wait, we do!  So what's the problem.
Governmental dependance makes for poor self reliance.

"What could possibly go wrong with a duct tape boat?"  Cody Lundin

The best defense against evil men are good men with violent skill sets.
Reply
#18
My understanding, the majority doesn't work in the Senate. Yes, we have 52 votes, but we need 60 votes to keep it from being able to be blocked under current Senate rules. In the House they have more than just the majority.

Why is a simple majority usually not enough to pass a bill in the Senate?
Share Tweet Reddit Flipboard Email
You may have noticed the president's tweet calling for a rule change in the Senate -- make it 51 votes instead of 60, he opined over Twitter Tuesday, hours after the GOP-controlled Senate's second attempt at passing its health care bill fell apart.

The Senate must go to a 51 vote majority instead of current 60 votes. Even parts of full Repeal need 60. 8 Dems control Senate. Crazy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 18, 2017
And, you might wonder why there's a 60-vote rule in the Senate, when it just takes a straight majority in the House to pass a bill. The answer is that that's what the Founders intended. The Senate was designed to be the "cooling saucer," where the two parties were forced to work together. That 60-vote threshold ensures that in order to pass legislation, the majority party needs to get some buy-in from the minority.

However, that has been eroding. Back in 2013, Democrats, who at the time controlled the Senate, were so frustrated by the slow pace of confirmation of then-President Obama's nominees that they pulled the trigger on what was known as the "nuclear option." This essentially changed the rules in the Senate and busted the 60-vote threshold down to a simple majority of 51 votes for presidential nominees only.

Fast-forward to 2017, when Republicans chipped a little more away from the 60-vote requirement when they said that Supreme Court nominees would also only need 51 votes to be confirmed.

So things have been changing, yes. But even if that rule were changed to apply broadly to legislation, it would make no difference in the current situation facing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. They have already been using a 51-vote rule -- in this case, the budget procedure known as "reconciliation" -- to try to get their Obamacare repeal bill passed. Under this rule, they're limited to what they can keep in and what they can leave out. The rule only allows Republicans to touch Obamacare's budget-related provisions, not its regulations. The bill would repeal all of Obamacare's subsidies, taxes, and penalties for those who don't buy insurance, but keeps in place Obamacare's rules about what insurers must cover.

Even with that rule in place, Republicans have been unable to reach the bare majority they need to pass the legislation. Even within their own party, there are divisions, and with a slim 52-48 majority, McConnell has only been allowed to lose two votes before the measure fails. They need near-unanimity if they want to get something done without Democratic support.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)