There’s No Possibility Getting National Reciprocity During Lame Duck

Why does everyone in the gun issue think a Lame Duck passing of National Reciprocity is possible? It’s not. Not happening. Wasn’t going to happen in any known universe of possibilities.

Lame duck sessions are when you might get an outgoing party to do something for an important constituency they didn’t want to otherwise do if having to face re-election. It’s not a magical time where you can get anything you want. First, the Lame Duck House has already passed National Reciprocity. They weren’t the problem.

The problem is getting 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. The votes for that aren’t there, whether it’s a lame duck session or not. The only option would be to eliminate the filibuster, and while I do think the filibuster should be taken back to what it used to be prior to the 1970s, I have a bad bad feeling if we did that now, we’d very much come to regret it in the not too distant future.

The only way we’re likely making progress is to have the courts firm up the 2nd Amendment a bit, and make Bloomberg reel some. Strategically, I think the number one goal should be to get gun bans off the table. You cannot ban handguns, rifles, and shotguns, no matter what they look like, and what ergonomic features they have. Semi-automatic firearms are categorically protected. We also need some kind of protection for common accessories, like magazines. If those are off the table, we’re on much better ground for moving carry forward. I’ve never agreed with putting carry first on the priority list. We need bans off the table, first and foremost.

39 thoughts on “There’s No Possibility Getting National Reciprocity During Lame Duck”

  1. You are right that national reciprocity isn’t going anywhere anytime soon barring court action. But as to the filibuster, the Democrats are going to whack it anyway once the conditions are right so what is the downside for us.

    1. Amen on the Democraps whacking the Filbuster. *uck Schumer was openly admitting to scrapping the Filibuster entirely in October of 2016, when he and the Democrap Party were prematurely celebrating winning the 2016 Presidential Election with Queen-Cankles Clinton, and her victory securing a Democrap Controlled Senate.

  2. Pingback: SayUncle » True
  3. There may not be a vote on reciprocity, but if all gun owners get out of 2 years of Republican control of the house and senate is a bump stock ban then gun owners need to throw the bums out. Let the Dems have it next time out nd build for the future. It’s the only way to get the establishment to understand that betraying us means they lose when they need our votes.

    because, if we just “hold our noses” and vote for the lesser of two evils, we continue to get nothing but losses.

    1. Donald trump straight up said “take the guns first, go through due process second”, yet the right still thinks he’ll act in support of the second amendment.

    2. That is classic cut off your nose to spite them. It does not work Allow democrats to take control and we will never get our rights back they will lie, cheat, steal and destroy our rights so there is no choice but to go violent.

      1. The Republicans have proven unwilling to actually do anything in the senate, only say they will do something. This lack of trustworthiness will manifest itself again and again until held to account.

        The only lingering fear in Team R’s fading memory is the mid terms of 1994 after passage of the so called awe That memory is seriously fading and both sides are now openly talking about serious infringements. What do you want to do, keep the people who lied in power?

        You can see in state governments as well, a lot of time when there is one party power in the legislative and executive, they slow walk anything they don’t envision as “mainstream”. The new term for this is “establishment”. They basically sit on anything, bottle up bills in committees, ensure they go to multiple and disparate committees, die there or get the clock run out. This is what’s happened to us here.

        DJT certainly said the right things, but we have known for … well ever, that McConnell is no friend of the 2nd amendment. what 2a bill has he introduced and gotten beyond a committee to a floor vote? What 2a bill has he pushed through committee? If you have to resort to an internet search to answer these questions, he’s not even a tacit 2a supporter, he’s a professional liar.

        If you hand the Dems control of the senate, 2 things will happen.
        1) Dom leadership will temper the wild eyed, socialist gun grabs and water them down to “establishment” standards to make them more palatable.
        2) Republicans will realized they lost part of their base as a result of Team Mitch and fight a lot harder to get back into power.

        That gives us needed leverage over republicans.

        It’s been said before that DJT is a pragmatist, not an ideologue and I agree, so, if we make the calculus such that the right thing is improving 2a by passing good gun bills, it will get done.

        1. The last time Dems had control of the Senate they did not water down the radials but ran headlong in their direction. Blame Democratic Senators for the lack of reciprocity 51 GOP Senators are not enough . Please be real.

  4. This will sound macabre, but I think the best result gun owners can expect from the near future is if Breyer or Ginsburg leave the court before 2020. Realistically, that will be with the escort of the Reaper, because neither will want to give Trump another pick willingly. It’s not a great hope, but Supreme Court rulings knocking down restrictive laws may be our only way to protect these rights.

  5. Why does everyone in the gun issue think a Lame Duck passing of National Reciprocity is possible?

    Because too many of them can’t see any light between what is and what should be.

  6. Care to elaborate what you mean by “the filibuster should be taken back to what it used to be prior to the 1970s”? Do you just mean making them actually speak, as opposed to this while vaguely threaten a procedural hint we got now?

    And amen to the wishcasting about reciprocity. Those fools have had zero legislative agenda since Ryan passed the Tax bill last year. Why would it change now? All they care about is tweeting, not actually doing things.

    If we want 2A victories, the NRA needs to abandon this cult of personality thing, and look to supporting Democrats and moderates, when they are 2A. The failure to endorse Reid back in 2010 was a strategic mistake, and going both barrels at moderates like Bredesen won’t win victories long term.

    1. Under the TRUE filibuster:

      The Senate works on one thing at a time. When an issue comes before the Senate, there is debate, and then a vote. As long as there are still people on the floor actively keeping debate open (i.e. they’re still standing in the chamber talking), a vote cannot occur, and the Senate cannot move on to other business. The only exception to this is if enough of the Senate votes to invoke cloture, and thereby end debate.

      What we have now is really phony filibuster: It’s a system where a Senator declares that they’re filibustering something without having to actually stand and talk to keep debate open, and then it cannot be voted on until there are at least 60 Senators willing to vote in favor of invoking cloture. If the votes are there to invoke cloture, they just move on to other business.

      Frankly, Sebastian is right: We need to return to the true filibuster.

      As for your last paragraph: I’m not convinced that there are all that many Democrats willing to be a pro-gun vote. Like it or not, gun control is baked into the national democrat party platform. Like it or not, if individual candidates want party endorsement and party support, they will fall into line with the party on this issue when it comes time to vote, regardless of what they say on the campaign trail, and regardless of what they may personally believe on the issue.

      To be clear, I agree that this is one of our biggest threats, and that we need to solve it: We cannot afford for gun control to be an article of partisan party politics; instead, it needs to be a civil rights issue that no candidate can afford to oppose.

  7. Because there are no more “pro-gun” democrats, moderate democrats, blue dog democrats or democrats that actually support the non socialists in America.

    The ones who talk the pro-gun talk, continue to vote for things we find abhorrent, support registration under the guise of background checks, and other manners of infringements. They say they’re pro-gun but vote for sub standard nominees for the supreme court, and others whose belief system includes that the 2nd Amendment only secures a collective right for militias to carry muskets.

    Not that Republicans are much better.

    let’s be honest: No matter what party is in power, confiscation is the end game. Dems want confiscation now. Pubs know it’s not realistic yet and want to secure a few more restrictions before going for confiscation.

  8. I’m going to play Devil’s Advocate for a minute:

    I believe that national reciprocity, including sufficient teeth to prevent states like NJ from trying to play stupid games, is one of the most critical things our movement needs to accomplish in order to prevent the kind of national backslide we seem to be on the cusp of suffering.

    If we look at the progress we’ve made in the 50 states on the carry rights issue over the last 30 years or so, it’s pretty clear that those improvements snowballed: Many of the states that liberalized their carry laws 15-30 years ago have liberalized their firearms laws in general since then.

    The reason for this is simple: Carry rights make it clear that the RKBA is about self defense, which in turn brings a lot of people into the fold — The kind of hoops that people have to jump through in places like NJ and NYC are designed and intended to severely disincentivize gun ownership: Most people aren’t into the hobby side of gun ownership (collecting, regularly going to the range, etc.), but see their utility for self-defense. Expanding carry rights helps to build momentum for us because it greatly increases the number of people willing to jump through the hoops to be gun owners, which in turn helps ensure that we have a sufficiently large constituency in order to pass more pro-gun bills, and it snowballs from there.

    TLDR: Politics is downstream of culture, and expanding carry rights has been shown to have a huge cultural impact.

    1. I agree with HSR47 completely. The CC reciprocity bill passed by the house that is dying in the Senate would have:

      1) Made every state shall-issue (with out of state permits)

      2) Eliminated bans on handgun magazines capacity in the whole USA (it had a provision protecting ANY magazine for handguns).

      That would have give a LOT more people a vested interest in protecting their gun rights- because they could now carry a gun for the first time legally.

      1. It also would have made carrying a handgun in a state as a visitor an act of Interstate Commerce, subject to federal regulation by future administrations. Yes, we really want that!

          1. You make and have no argument here! I am just presenting a fact! I have not stated “my way”!

            If you are willing to make carrying a handgun in a state as a visitor an act of Interstate Commerce in order to have the power to override that state’s prohibition, then you are just trading one poison against a more powerful one because it tastes better.

            Stupid is as stupid does. This is how we have been losing rights for decades.

            1. Under WIckard and Raich, it’s already an act of interstate commerce because every part that makes up the firearm affects interstate commerce, even if you mine the raw material, using tools you fashioned, mill and complete the gun using exclusively materials only on property you own, you make your own powder, primers, cartridges and bullets, and you are still affecting interstate commerce. Even if you never leave your state.

              1. Thank you for proving my point. A national reciprocity law enacted by Republicans with the blessing of SCOTUS would codify the general accepted government overreach on Interstate Commerce specifically for the personal use of firearms, thus opening the door for more federal regulation on the personal, non-commercial use of firearms. By the time you are finished, everything you do will be Interstate Commerce and subject to federal regulation. Congrats!

                1. Actually, you are proving our point.

                  Specifically, every objectionable aspect you have articulated is already the status quo. The national reciprocity bill would have merely harnessed that longstanding status quo as a means of expanding the practical scope of our liberty, specifically as a means of further expanding our liberty.

                  The people who are really holding us back are the people who refuse to recognize that we got where we are through incrementalism, and that a similarly incremental approach is the only way to dig ourselves out.

                  We are at the bottom of a very deep hole, and we are far weak and far too heavy to be able to pull ourselves up using the fishing line they use to lower our meals. The only way for us to get out is to use the same shovel that got us into this predicament as a means of tunneling diagonally upwards.

                  If all you will accept is the kind of perfection that is beyond the Overton Window, then you will never see any gun rights bill that you favor pass nationally. On the other hand, if you are willing to trade extreme tyranny for slightly less tyranny, we will be able to gradually shift the Overton window in our favor, which may mean that you finally see a gun rights bill you truly like pass before you die of old age.

                  1. You are right on incrementalism, you are just wrong about the direction. National reciprocity by federal law is simply not an improvement. It is a temporary sugar high with a really bad aftertaste. Meanwhile, the incrementalism in the right direction has increased the number of states with permit-less carry and the number of states with shall issue over the years. There are a number SCOTUS cases in the works that will further improve the situation.

                    Anyway, national reciprocity by federal law simply ain’t gonna happen, as this article makes clear. We will get a federal bump stock ban though.

                    1. You still haven’t said what your solution is, so let’s hear it. Since you’re so dead set against it.

                      Likely you’re actually a gun control supporter trolling here, but even so, I’m sure this will be enlightening.

                      queue CF’s feigned outrage at being called a gun control supporter.

                  2. So, you ran out of arguments and now resort to name calling. Got it! Maybe you are the gun control supporter? LOL.

                    As I said, there are a number SCOTUS cases in the works that will further improve the situation. That’s the way to get our rights back.

                    I can already carry in 35 states. It will take a SCOTUS decision ANYWAY to be able to carry in the other states and in DC. You want to get that SCOTUS decision with a national reciprocity law. I want to get that SCOTUS decision without it!

                    Do you really think that CA, NY, MD, NJ, DC, CT, OR, etc. will just roll over and accept a national reciprocity law? NO, absolutely not. They will challenge it and will get a SCOTUS decision.

                    SCOTUS may rule that this is local and not federal law enforcement, striking down a national reciprocity law. SCOTUS may rule that this is covered under a further extended interpretation of the Commerce Clause, thus opening the floodgates for federal regulations on carrying firearms. Either way, you lose!

                    The national reciprocity law is simply ill designed. No name calling will help with that issue. It is also simply not going to happen, given the political realities.

                    1. Ok, thanks for that.

                      This is the “Hail Mary” theory that we can simply and in our lifetime get a case in front of SCOTUS that ends gun control as we know it.

                      that’s a great fantasy, and I’d love to see it happen, but there’s even less chance of this fantasy than national reciprocity.

                      reciprocity under I/C forces the states to challenge interstate commerce regulatory scheme and if they succeed, it basically undercuts Wickard and Raich. If either of those 2 bedrock cases are undercut in the least, the commerce clause reverts back to a more originalist understanding

                      Now, in what reality will the federal government acquiesce to a court ruling undercutting Congress’s regulatory power? Would SCOTUS rule to overturn at least parts of Wickard and Raich to prop up third world $hithole states like the ones you name to uphold their junta like ruling class? Or would SCOTUS say no? probably the latter, but only after a court fight to get there. For sure, 2nd and 3rd circuits would immediately go for a nationwide injunction, but again this is under the commerce clause and would immediately and severely threaten the power of Congress to act. That is part of the brilliance of the bill.

                      The Hail Mary theory is also what people who don’t support gun rights proclaim will bail us all out. These people don’t show up to rallies, they don’g spend time emailing, calling, stamping envelopes, a common refrain of “I”d join the NRA but I don’t want to be on any lists”, but these people love to hang out at gun clubs b!tching about how bad things are. They also love to hang out on blogs and troll for anything pro-gun and try to poison it with “it will never happen” stupidity. These are the people in our community who will never help us with any effort to either repeal restrictions or advance our rights at any level beyond the current status quo.

                      The only reason efforts like reciprocity fails is people like charlie foxtrot here deliberately doing everything in his/her power to poison the well.

                      And not that he’s the only one, he’s just the most vociferous anti-gun troll on this blog. Listening or paying heed to the “Mr. Dindonuffins” on the internet is how we lose.

                  3. You mean Hail Marys like Heller and McDonald? Right, we have no chance other than to submit to our overlords. Keep digging. LOL.

                    You are, once again, making my case. Read and learn about the “‘herpes’ theory”: By that notion, everything you own or do eventually falls under Interstate Commerce. YOU ARE ASKING FOR IT!

                    By the way, I am an NRA Benefactor Life Member. I have my issues with the NRA, though. I voted for Adam Kraut for the BoD. Yeah, you really have me figured out. LOL. Keep on name calling, as you have lost your argument.

                    1. Heller and McDonald were carefully thought out, planned, and opposed by NRA.

                      if you’re not aware of just how much currently falls under interstate commerce, as your missives make clear, you don’t, you are simply blogging out of ignorance. read Wickard v. FIlburn – not the wiki page, then read Raich.

                      I salute your vote for Kraut. what else do you do, besides blog in opposition to RKBA?

                      Oh, I better add LOL for you. Or perhaps some ALL CAPS.

                      Wishes, prayers and fantasies about winner take all supreme court cases aren’t going to get our freedom back. Fake idealogical purity in opposition to any effort to oppose any congressional effort to restore our freedom won’t either.

                  4. So, still name calling and repeating the same argument over and over again is supposed to help LOL.

                    This has nothing to do with “ideological purity”, but rather practicality. The same practicality why your national carry reciprocity is DOA (and always has been).

                    Again, which Democrats are going to vote on cloture for national carry reciprocity? NONE! It passed the House for the same reason Democrats filed H.R. 7115, for political grand standing, knowing it won’t go anywhere.

                    This isn’t a Congressional effort to restore your rights. That’s where you are simply wrong. This is a Congressional effort to further regulate your rights, and you and the NRA are specifically asking for it because it has a short-term gain. You have something in common here with the NRA, negotiating rights away.

                    PS: Using all caps for specific words is a way to emphasize them. Mocking writing stile is quite childish, but then, that’s the level you have reached in this discussion as you ran out of arguments a while ago.

                    1. Those of us interesting in getting the 2nd Amendment back on level with the rest of the bill of rights will continue to try despite your efforts to undermine us.

                      The same tired old “Trojan horse” argument is shared with Dudley Brown.
                      Hail Mary SCOTUS case theory doesn’t work. There’s not even an active case that would produce the magical results you’ve suggested, so you scream ‘congress is trying to grab your guns’ with national reciprocity.

                      By your proposition, we can never turn to congress because anything we put in front of congress is a potential for more regulation of guns. So we have to rely solely on the courts, who interpret cases in the light of the whole body of statutory law and administrative code being presumed constitutional. If gun control continues to grow and we do as you suggest, we lose, year after year as the right erodes away into nothing because – God help us, any congressional bill is a trojan horse for gun control.

                      I seem to have run out of arguments after you wholly misrepresented the actual scope of interstate commerce.

                      I will however agree not to mock your writing “stile” any further. You’re doing well enough at that on your own.

                  5. Well, now we are at the place in the discussion where you just make stuff up that I never said. For example, I did actually post a legal opinion that would make national reciprocity work though Congressional action without trading away our rights.

                    Congrats, you won! Not really, but I will give you the last word as it will no doubt contain more made up stuff and insults.

                    1. awesome. when your side loses, the 2nd Amendment supporters win. Really.

                      Hail Mary SCOTUS case isn’t ever coming. National Reciprocity might happen, when 2nd Amendment supporters stop listening the do nothing chicken littles sitting around criticizing pro gun efforts like national reciprocity with wild eyed, made up fantasies.

        1. Guns are already regulated via the perverse application of the IC clause. That horse has left the barn.

          Unless the courts decide to overturn the state bans then the only way I saw to fight the restrictive states was with NCCR.

          Not perfect, but without it looks like we’re becoming 2 nations, 1 where the 2A exists, and 1 where it doesn’t.

        2. Charlie Foxtrot, it has already been this way for a long, long time… remember we still have the gun free schools act under the idiotic claims of the commerce clause.

          AND, the 14th amendment claim is 100% valid for CC reciprocity even if you don’t like the Commerce clause claim (like me).

          1. The the history of the GFSZA is exactly what I am afraid of, a FURTHER extension of the overreach on using the Commerce Clause. Remember, the GFSZA was originally declared unconstitutional and had to be modified with the now well-known “has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce.”

            I still consider the GFSZA unconstitutional. In today’s world, ALMOST EVERYTHING has moved across state lines: myself, the building materials in my house, my car, and everything else I own. Under such broad application of the Commerce Clause, EVERYTHING can be regulated by the federal government.

            The existence of a wrong law doesn’t justify enacting yet another wrong law, because we may get a temporary benefit. A national carry reciprocity law based on the Commerce Clause will undoubtedly be used to establish national standards for issuing carry permits and more gun-free zones down the road.

            Read the article I posted to see how a national carry reciprocity law can work without essentially eliminating states’ rights:

            By the way, this reminds me of something else: “Donald Trump: ‘I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools’” (see Yet another campaign promise that went nowhere.

            1. No.

              it’s pointless to try and convince a dyed in the wool gun controller like C/F of anything. his / her plan here is not a debate or discussion. their purpose here is to sow doubt, hopelessness and feelings of futility in the pro-2A community.

              they first feign ignorance of interstate commerce and you can see above acknowledge it actually does affect pretty much everything.

              their goal by commenting here, and certainly other blogs is to make sure pro-gun people don’t take action. They want you to sit on your computer “swatting down the trolls” so that you won’t do anything else like call the Senate leadership or for that matter pretty much any other pro-gun activity. If you expend all your energy on blogs stamping out the “don’t do it! It will lead to more gun control” commentary by trolls, you aren’t focusing your energy where it counts; elected officials.

              Is it working? If you’re spending time on this and making excuses for not advancing some other pro 2A effort, then gun controller supporters like charlie foxtrot here win and our side loses.

              1. I provided a road for national carry reciprocity legistlation that does not involve further abusing the Commerce Clause.

                You offer more drivel and personal attacks, because you have lost your argument several posts ago.

                Once again, I will leave the last word to you. Clowns will be clowns and useful idiots are just that, useful idiots.

  9. You said that once before, so your comments are a bit on the inaccurate side.

    I’m glad I “lost” the argument to your superior writing “stile”. Are you from Internet Research Agency? because your deliberately misleading and misdirecting comments about national reciprocity and the interstate commerce clause does dovetail nicely with their efforts.

    I hear Moscow is pretty cold now. Enjoy the frost, comrade.

Comments are closed.