Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A Law to Enforce the Law?---Taking another shot to "Fix NICS"
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="abajaj11" data-source="post: 3061703" data-attributes="member: 3553"><p><strong> HR 4477 has a senate equivalent which is S.2135. This has been proposed by John Cornyn, RINO from Texas, and supported by a bunch of lefty dems. </strong></p><p><strong>I did go to the Senate bill's (S.2135) website and got this text that may be helpful:</strong></p><p>"</p><p>NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES.—For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal department or agency that has failed to certify compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C), and is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding overtime pay, until the department or agency—</p><p></p><p>“(i) certifies compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C); or</p><p></p><p>“(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G).</p><p>"</p><p><strong>In my opinion, this puts financial incentives for agencies to put forth all sorts of categories of names until they are ruled in "substantial compliance" by the federal agency. In other words, power is being shifted to a federal agency over states when it comes to determining "substantial compliance with NICs" with real financial penalties, using our taxpayer money. So, if the federal agency rules that all people on prescription drugs are to be denied NICs, the states HAVE to comply. Same with, say people with unpaid traffic violations.</strong></p><p><strong>To summarize, unelected federal bureaucrats would now determine who should be denied NICs, and can penalize states for this. </strong></p><p></p><p>Please consider calling (or emailing via the GOA link shown in a post above) ) both our senators, especially the junior one, and making sure they understand the consequences of voting for this bill, electorally speaking.</p><p>The bill can be found at:</p><p><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cornyn%22%5D%7D&r=1" target="_blank">https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q={"search":["cornyn"]}&r=1</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="abajaj11, post: 3061703, member: 3553"] [B] HR 4477 has a senate equivalent which is S.2135. This has been proposed by John Cornyn, RINO from Texas, and supported by a bunch of lefty dems. I did go to the Senate bill's (S.2135) website and got this text that may be helpful:[/B] " NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTIES.—For each of fiscal years 2019 through 2022, each political appointee of a Federal department or agency that has failed to certify compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C), and is not in substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G), shall not be eligible for the receipt of bonus pay, excluding overtime pay, until the department or agency— “(i) certifies compliance with the record submission requirements under subparagraph (C); or “(ii) achieves substantial compliance with an implementation plan established under subparagraph (G). " [B]In my opinion, this puts financial incentives for agencies to put forth all sorts of categories of names until they are ruled in "substantial compliance" by the federal agency. In other words, power is being shifted to a federal agency over states when it comes to determining "substantial compliance with NICs" with real financial penalties, using our taxpayer money. So, if the federal agency rules that all people on prescription drugs are to be denied NICs, the states HAVE to comply. Same with, say people with unpaid traffic violations. To summarize, unelected federal bureaucrats would now determine who should be denied NICs, and can penalize states for this. [/B] Please consider calling (or emailing via the GOA link shown in a post above) ) both our senators, especially the junior one, and making sure they understand the consequences of voting for this bill, electorally speaking. The bill can be found at: [URL='https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22cornyn%22%5D%7D&r=1']https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2135/text?q={"search":["cornyn"]}&r=1[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A Law to Enforce the Law?---Taking another shot to "Fix NICS"
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
