US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

"Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act’"
https://www.daines.senate.gov/imo/media ... L19D13.pdf
A BILL
To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to more comprehensively address the interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition.
Virtue successfully signaled with the right.

From the pol's site:
Daines Introduces Bill to Protect 2nd Amendment, Law-Abiding Gun Owners
Daines’ bill reforms FOPA to:
  • Clarify the term “transport” as to include, “staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental”.
  • Ensure that law-abiding gun owners may not be arrested for violation of local laws relating to “the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms” unless there is probable cause.
  • Put the burden of proof clearly on the States to prove that the traveler beyond a reasonable doubt, did not meet the requirements of § 926A.
  • Clarify that transportation of firearms, their magazines, and ammunition is federally protected.
  • Make clear that violation of the right to transport firearms is judicially enforceable as a federal civil right.
Will go down in flames.

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by Eris »

As you say, this isn't going anywhere, but it's important to bring these kinds of bills up. This seems like a very reasonable bill and at some point it's provisions may be something we can get as part of a compromise on a gun control act. The anti's always have a list of demands of things they want, so the pro-gun side should have just as a big a list of issues waiting and ready to go at any minute.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Eris wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:21 pm
As you say, this isn't going anywhere, but it's important to bring these kinds of bills up. This seems like a very reasonable bill and at some point it's provisions may be something we can get as part of a compromise on a gun control act. The anti's always have a list of demands of things they want, so the pro-gun side should have just as a big a list of issues waiting and ready to go at any minute.
FOPA already covers this. There should not have to be a new law to require states to adhere to FOPA, a law that already is binding on the states. I would hate to see a right bargained away using such a redundant bill as a faux compromise.

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14247
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by lurker »

i often wonder if there are a significant number of "republicans" who would suddenly realize that national health care or education loan forgiveness or other "liberal" policies are GOOD things, if only gun control was taken out of the mix? we've allowed the NRA to define us for their own benefit, and i think we've hurt ourselves by embracing it.

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by Eris »

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:33 pm
Eris wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:21 pm
As you say, this isn't going anywhere, but it's important to bring these kinds of bills up. This seems like a very reasonable bill and at some point it's provisions may be something we can get as part of a compromise on a gun control act. The anti's always have a list of demands of things they want, so the pro-gun side should have just as a big a list of issues waiting and ready to go at any minute.
FOPA already covers this. There should not have to be a new law to require states to adhere to FOPA, a law that already is binding on the states. I would hate to see a right bargained away using such a redundant bill as a faux compromise.
The existing law has been interpreted by the courts as being vague enough that the states can get away with violating the spirit of the law, by for example, saying that you are only travelling through the state if you make no stops of any kind, not even for gas, so we need a bill like this to take away that wiggle room and make it clear that the law should not be interpreted so badly. I'd love to see this happen entirely on it's own without any compromise of other rights, but that is not going to happen, as you yourself said. So it's entirely reasonable to stick this in the negotiation bin. The alternative, after all, is having nothing at all to demand in exchange when the anti's come wanting more restrictions. It's easier to stop them by saying "we will agree to your 'common sense bill' if you agree to ours too" than it is to say "we just oppose you outright". The former sends a message to the public that you are trying to get something done, while the later sends the message that you just oppose doing anything about gun violence. Having nothing to negotiate about and just always saying "no" to every proposal is part of what is turning the general public against gun owners.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Eris wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:46 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:33 pm
Eris wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 2:21 pm
As you say, this isn't going anywhere, but it's important to bring these kinds of bills up. This seems like a very reasonable bill and at some point it's provisions may be something we can get as part of a compromise on a gun control act. The anti's always have a list of demands of things they want, so the pro-gun side should have just as a big a list of issues waiting and ready to go at any minute.
FOPA already covers this. There should not have to be a new law to require states to adhere to FOPA, a law that already is binding on the states. I would hate to see a right bargained away using such a redundant bill as a faux compromise.
The existing law has been interpreted by the courts as being vague enough that the states can get away with violating the spirit of the law, by for example, saying that you are only travelling through the state if you make no stops of any kind, not even for gas, so we need a bill like this to take away that wiggle room and make it clear that the law should not be interpreted so badly. I'd love to see this happen entirely on it's own without any compromise of other rights, but that is not going to happen, as you yourself said. So it's entirely reasonable to stick this in the negotiation bin. The alternative, after all, is having nothing at all to demand in exchange when the anti's come wanting more restrictions. It's easier to stop them by saying "we will agree to your 'common sense bill' if you agree to ours too" than it is to say "we just oppose you outright". The former sends a message to the public that you are trying to get something done, while the later sends the message that you just oppose doing anything about gun violence. Having nothing to negotiate about and just always saying "no" to every proposal is part of what is turning the general public against gun owners.
What would you be willing to give up to get the "Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act"?

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by Eris »

DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:06 pm
What would you be willing to give up to get the "Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act"?
You are completely missing my point, so let me turn your question around: what are you going to refuse to ask for when the anti's demand more restrictions?

If you've got something to ask for then you are turning the tables on the antis by making them the ones standing in the way of progress when they refuse to allow "common sense" legislation like this. You also make them pause and have to think about how much they really want the thing they are asking for. Are they actually willing to make a trade off? Usually the antis just take, take, take and never give anything in return. Well I say let them be the ones to give something up for change!
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11035
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by K9s »

Daines is no hero. He is using this as a political ploy. Look him up and tell me he gives a damn about anything except reelection.

It is a distraction for Fox News pre-election coverage. His resolution to dismiss articles of impeachment fell flat, too.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Eris wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:23 pm
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:06 pm
What would you be willing to give up to get the "Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act"?
You are completely missing my point, so let me turn your question around: what are you going to refuse to ask for when the anti's demand more restrictions?

If you've got something to ask for then you are turning the tables on the antis by making them the ones standing in the way of progress when they refuse to allow "common sense" legislation like this. You also make them pause and have to think about how much they really want the thing they are asking for. Are they actually willing to make a trade off? Usually the antis just take, take, take and never give anything in return. Well I say let them be the ones to give something up for change!
I'm not buying it. You very strongly suggested "Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act" was a bill with which 2A supporters could bargain. In the second paragraph of your reply quoted in this post, you even state "If you've got something to ask for then you are turning the tables on the antis by making them the ones standing in the way of progress when they refuse to allow "common sense" legislation like this." So if you're not, despite all appearances, identifying the "Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act" as your example of "common sense legislation," can you give another example of such "common sense legislation"?

What I would _refuse_ to ask makes no sense in this context, since it would not be tailored to meet firearm prohibitionists' definition of "common sense." Of course, that hypothetical requires that firearm prohibitionists be recognized as honest brokers in the first place.

User avatar
Eris
Moderator
Posts: 3061
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by Eris »

OK. Whatever. If you want to stand on principle and have no leverage against prohibitionists, then that's your choice.
88+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Eris wrote:OK. Whatever. If you want to stand on principle and have no leverage against prohibitionists, then that's your choice.
Again, what specifically would constitute that "leverage"? What would be your example?
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11394
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by DispositionMatrix »

Just an explanation from The Hyperbole About Guns.
New House Bill Would Give Gun Owners Real Safe Passage Protection When Traveling With Firearms
Rep. Mo Brooks‘ office agreed. He and thirteen co-sponsors have filed the “Lawful Interstate Transportation of Firearms Act”, with much improved language. Contrast Sen. Daines’ definition of “transport” with this.

4 ‘‘(b) In subsection (a), the term ‘transport’ includes
5 staying in temporary lodging, stopping for food, fuel, vehi-
6 cle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, or any
7 other activity incidental to the transport.

“Lodging overnight” is gone, making any stop is protected. I was still somewhat concerned about New York’s penchant for misinterpreting what a “destination” is, but Brooks’ D.C. office was kind enough to point out one more provision that I must have misread the first time through.

User avatar
K9s
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 11035
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:18 pm
Location: LGC Member: Georgia
Contact:

Re: US Republican to introduce bill to acknowledge the P in FOPA

Post by K9s »

Are we actually agreeing with Mo Brooks? I wonder what Louie Gohmert says about it, too. These guys are not actually pro-2A for everyone, you know.
The border between civilization and savagery is porous and patrolled by opportunists. Resist fascism. Vote like your democracy depends on it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests