Ammo For Sale

« « Clever | Home | The introduced Sportsmen’s Heritage And Recreational Enhancement Act has the Hearing Protection Act in it » »

Speaker Ryan blocking national reciprocity

So reports one congressman. The reason is “the timing isn’t right”. The timing is likely right when they know it will not pass to offer it up to pander to their base.

13 Responses to “Speaker Ryan blocking national reciprocity”

  1. Tim Says:

    He makes me embarrassed to be a former ‘Sconsinite.

  2. majmike Says:

    RINO bastard.

  3. Jim Crum Says:

    Push the Overton Window – if not now… when?

  4. Fred Says:

    Speaker Ryan is post menopausal and now serves no function of value to his race.

  5. Patrick Says:

    But, but there are so many co-sponsors!!

    I explained to someone a few months back that a spike in co-sponsors – especially from those in tight electoral districts – means a bill is dead. The spike means the bill is being used as an opportunity to take credit for supporting something (reciprocity) without the harm of it becoming law. So a co-sponsor can go back and say, “Hell, I even co-sponsored the bill!” when in reality they are whispering to the House Speaker, “I really don’t want to take that vote before my election.”

    When Ryan says the timing is not right, that’s what he meant. Right now GOP members get to have it both ways – “supporting” reciprocity while not being responsible for it passing.

    Proof: There are enough co-sponsors today on HR 38 (the reciprocity act) that they can pretty much force a floor vote even without a committee vote. If they want this out of the House, they can do it without Ryan.

    Of course, that would assume “co-sponsor” is someone wishing to pass the bill into law, instead of someone looking to virtue signal on a bill that will never become law. So don’t hold your breath.

  6. Patrick Says:

    If you read my last post closely, you’ll see Ryan is not the only bad guy here. The GOP caucus could force this and move without the Speaker. But they won’t.

    Don’t simply blame Ryan. Blame them all. The GOP caucus does not want forward motion here, and the NRA is aware and NOT holding GOP feet to the fire. You will hear absolutely zero from NRA about betrayal. It would cancel their cocktail invites.

    I just thought it important to make that crystal clear.

    FWIW, taking silencers from NFA is the thing they will do. It sounds pro-gun until you realize it lets states regulate the shit out of them (including outright bans). You can buy them in Maryland today; but after this becomes federal law the state will outright ban them.

    That’s the GOP’s idea of “pro-gun”: pass something that sounds nice but leave enough intentional loopholes in place that the end effect will be more gun-control.

    This has been in the works since March.

  7. Dave Says:

    Another problem is that the congressman doing the complaining about Ryan is Thomas Massie, who…even though he founded and co-chairs the Congressional 2nd Amendment Causcus…has so far refused to endorse H.R. 38 himself.

    As much of a weasel as Ryan has turned out to be, I don’t think Massie has much room to bitch until he’s willing to put his own name on it.

  8. rickn8or Says:

    It used to annoy me when the Dems shot down pro-gun legislation, but since the Republicans started doing it, I’m thoroughly pissed.

  9. beatbox Says:

    Yes on the co-sponsor gimmick. Read any list of Rep “accomplishments” and they are littered with “co sponsored” bills. Of course, they make it sound like it was them and 1 or 2 other reps who hammered out and pushed the legislation…

    The other problem, of course, is Trump. There is a lot less downside of these days of voting against the president and your party.

  10. Gary L Griffiths Says:

    We need to buckle down and support viable primary candidates to oppose the RINOs and liberal Democrats. Draining the swamp won’t be easy. Electing President Trump is only the first step.

  11. Ron W Says:

    @Dave, if HR 38 gives the Feds any control over CC, that would be a reason to oppose it. If it simply stipulates that all State Permits shall be recognized by all States, that’s good. I think GOA supports it and they are a Constitutionalist gun rights group.

  12. Dave Says:

    Ron…I read the bill myself before forming an opinion on it. It isn’t that long. It does not impose any federal control over concealed carry, and Congressman Massie knows it.

  13. Ron W Says:

    Thanks, Dave. Sounds good.