CCW, US Senate s371.

[nicki]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-371

Here is the link for the 21 co-sponsors of S371, 50 state reciprocity on CCW.

Now, this bill has no chance of passing on it's own, however, if it is linked to the Federal hate crimes bill, well, consider it our present.

We got national parks carry tied to a credit card bill. Attaching a CCW bill to a hate crimes bill actually makes sense.

Call the office, ask to talk to staffers who deal with gun rights. Be nice, these guys are on our side.

Have fun, tell them you would like them to consider giving Obama a present he can choke on.:D

Here is the capitol switchboard number 202 223 3121. I figure I got a 24/7 cell plan, might as well use those minutes.

If there is debate about CCW in the US Senate, it will put more of a public eye on the Sykes case.

If it gets attached in the Senate, it could actually stay on the bill.

With Mathew Sheppard's name attached to the bill, it will be very difficult to withdraw the bill without having a major backlash in the LBGT community.

So, lets just pour some gasoline on the fire and make those calls.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Good job Nicki! I don't like exploiting tragedy, but for Matt's sake, let's do it!

I called the number you gave. Busy. Will try again.

[gucci pilot]

I only read the general description of s371 so far, but it says "to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State."

From how I take it, my Utah CCW will still not allow me to carry in California. But I'll take this as great step forward for responsible carry. Thanks for the heads up.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

I only read the general description of s371 so far, but it says "to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State."

From how I take it, my Utah CCW will still not allow me to carry in California. But I'll take this as great step forward for responsible carry. Thanks for the heads up.

That's a good point. The State of California has a Penal Code that gives the right to issue CCWs to the local jurisdictions, but the state itself does not issue. If you take the black letter of the proposed law to heart, CA would not be wrong to fail to honor OOS CCW's.

[GaryV]

That's a good point. The State of California has a Penal Code that gives the right to issue CCWs to the local jurisdictions, but the state itself does not issue. If you take the black letter of the proposed law to heart, CA would not be wrong to fail to honor OOS CCW's.

Well, this may be a point that should be made to the bill's sponsors, or current Judiciary Committee members. It's not to late to change the wording.

Edited: Actually, when you read the text of the bill itself (rather than the description on the website), there's no problem.

‘Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:
‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.
‘(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’.

It says nothing about the state in which carry occurs having to have a permitting system at all, at any level of government. It just says "in any State, subject to the laws in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." This implies that , except for rules governing carry in specific types of places (schools, etc.), California (or even Illinois or Wisconsin) laws would not apply to a non-resident, but the laws of the person's home state would. So, with a Florida CWL, you could strap up like Isaac Hayes in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" and walk right down the street in San Francisco.

[bulgron]

Well, this may be a point that should be made to the bill's sponsors, or current Judiciary Committee members. It's not to late to change the wording.

Probably wouldn't stand up to judicial review if they did it. States rights, and all that.

[IGOTDIRT4U]

Well, this may be a point that should be made to the bill's sponsors, or current Judiciary Committee members. It's not to late to change the wording.

Edited: Actually, when you read the text of the bill itself (rather than the description on the website), there's no problem.



It says nothing about the state in which carry occurs having to have a permitting system at all, at any level of government. It just says "in any State, subject to the laws in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." This implies that , except for rules governing carry in specific types of places (schools, etc.), California (or even Illinois or Wisconsin) laws would not apply to a non-resident, but the laws of the person's home state would.

Wow! It's wide open, then!

[Untamed1972]

"‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried."


To me that says any person who holds a valid state issued CCW license from ANY state can carry anywhere in the US.

If anything it would be a big boost to force CA to go shall issue. If they are required to honor licenses from states with "lesser standards" then what would their justification be for still not issuing to CA residents. Again...seems like an equal protection issue to me.

Take for example drivers licenses. Yes... CA has their own issuing criteria, but they almost must honor out of state D/Ls that come from states with lesser criteria. But if you come to CA and meet the min requirements they MUST issue you a license. If they must then honor non-res CCW permits....then why must they not be required to issue CCW permits to CA residents?

[nick]

If this passes, those Utah people who issue the CCW permits will be backlogged even more.

Nicki, you weren't just kidding when you were asking those probing questions. My hat's off to you, once again.

[Decoligny]

I only read the general description of s371 so far, but it says "to allow citizens who have concealed carry permits from the State in which they reside to carry concealed firearms in another State that grants concealed carry permits, if the individual complies with the laws of the State."

From how I take it, my Utah CCW will still not allow me to carry in California. But I'll take this as great step forward for responsible carry. Thanks for the heads up.

What it will do is open up the possibility of pressuring the CA Legislature to go with Shall Issue. We can argue from the standpoint of "If we have every tourist in the country that has a license to conceal coming into CA being able to conceal, then why can't we get a license?"

[CSDGuy]

The language of the law above doesn't say anything about carrying in your "home" state on the license issued by another... the section (2) above has to do with the States of Vermont and Alaska. Since you can carry there without a CCW license... if you actually reside there, you can carry in all 50 states, subject to the restrictions of the local state about where NOT to carry. If you have a license issued by another state (say Utah), and not California, if this bill passes and becomes law, you should be able to carry in California on the Utah License...

[Untamed1972]

When it comes to issuing of any kind of license in CA are there any other's that are "may issue" and come with such subjective criteria?

Think of all the other kinds of licenses:
Driver's
Business
Doctor
Lawyer
Contractor
Marriage
etc......

are all just a few that pop off the top of my head. Yes...they all have certain criterias that must be met for qualification like education, training, testing and so on. But if one meets all of those conditions....the license MUST BE ISSUED. Not they're gonna say: "Well you met all of the qualifications to get a drivers license, but we don't see that you really have good cause to need to drive, so you are denied."

If they state is going to license something if should be required to be "shall issue" if reasonable criteria are met regardless of the thing being licensed. That's called "equal protection".

[yellowfin]

Probably wouldn't stand up to judicial review if they did it. States rights, and all that. I'd be very interested to see how they'd plan to make that arguement fly. Five or six states have the right to violate individual constitutional rights upheld not only by the Supreme Court, but the vast majority of other states. Basically that's like a prostitute filling out a job application for the papacy.

[Untamed1972]

I'd be very interested to see how they'd plan to make that arguement fly. Five or six states have the right to violate individual constitutional rights upheld not only by the Supreme Court, but the vast majority of other states. Basically that's like a prostitute filling out a job application for the papacy.

Why are ALL states required to accept reciprocity of things like driver's license or marriage license? Isn't that by federal mandate?

It almost seems like this issue WOULD be an area for the feds to invoke the "interstate commerce" clause.

[DDT]

Why are ALL states required to accept reciprocity of things like driver's license or marriage license? Isn't that by federal mandate?

It's called the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Article 4 section 1.

[GaryV]

It's called the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Article 4 section 1.

Exactly, There's no need to abuse the commerce clause when the issue of license reciprocity is already specifically addressed in the Constitution.

[GoodEyeSniper]

Does this mean I could get a non resident UTAH permit and be able to carry in California? Or does it have to be issued by your home state?

[nick]

Does this mean I could get a non resident UTAH permit and be able to carry in California? Or does it have to be issued by your home state?

Do we even have the final version of the law? has it passed yet? has it been interpreted by the various DAs and probably a few judges yet? :)

[bulgron]

It's called the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Article 4 section 1.

Does that really apply to licenses issued by one state to residents of another state? I can't believe that's true.

What full faith and credit means is that if one state (Utah) issues a license to a resident of that state, then the license must be honored by another state (California). However, I don't think that clause means that Utah can issue a license to a California state resident and expect California to honor it.

Otherwise, why have states at all?

[bulgron]

I'd be very interested to see how they'd plan to make that arguement fly. Five or six states have the right to violate individual constitutional rights upheld not only by the Supreme Court, but the vast majority of other states. Basically that's like a prostitute filling out a job application for the papacy.

Heller said that CCW can be regulated by the states. So at this point in time, given the (immature) case law that we have to work with, in the eyes of the courts those five or six states still are not violating the constitution.

In time, I fully expect all firearm licenses to be shall-issue and so all states will have to honor all other state's firearm licenses. But we have a long, long way to go before we get the courts to accept that and then to actually protect it.

Once all firearm licenses must be shall-issue, then we can make a Full Faith and Credit claim in federal court. But let's not put the cart before the horse here, okay?

[bdsmchs]

Being a California resident, I can't wait to carry concealed in Manhattan on my Utah permit :cool2:

[ilbob]

IMO, this is more properly a part of USC title 18, chapter 13, section 245.

IMO, short of a declaration by congress that CC is a right, congress has no power to enact such a law.

It needs to unequivically within the statute state that:

1. CC is a right of the people, recognized and protected by the 2A.
2. The 14th amendment gives congress the power to insure states do not violate this right.

The issue of where CC is allowed within a state is simple. Where ever off duty LEOs can lawfully carry, any law abiding person can carry who has been issued a permit or license to carry by any state or a political subdivision of any state. For the purposes of this legislation DC and the various US teritories are considered states.

[Gray Peterson]

Heller said that CCW can be regulated by the states. So at this point in time, given the (immature) case law that we have to work with, in the eyes of the courts those five or six states still are not violating the constitution.

In time, I fully expect all firearm licenses to be shall-issue and so all states will have to honor all other state's firearm licenses. But we have a long, long way to go before we get the courts to accept that and then to actually protect it.

Once all firearm licenses must be shall-issue, then we can make a Full Faith and Credit claim in federal court. But let's not put the cart before the horse here, okay?

If the six states you're talking about is New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and Hawaii, they ARE violating the constitution because they don't allow ANY carry without a carry license which is may issue.

[CaliforniaCarry]

This bill, as currently written, would appear to let a citizen with a permit from any state carry in any state, so long as they honor the laws of the state they are carrying in (in regards to location, anyways). That includes letting CA residents carry in CA on a UT permit.

Time to finally apply for my UT permit... :43:

[Untamed1972]

IMO, this is more properly a part of USC title 18, chapter 13, section 245.

IMO, short of a declaration by congress that CC is a right, congress has no power to enact such a law.

It needs to unequivically within the statute state that:

1. CC is a right of the people, recognized and protected by the 2A.
2. The 14th amendment gives congress the power to insure states do not violate this right.

The issue of where CC is allowed within a state is simple. Where ever off duty LEOs can lawfully carry, any law abiding person can carry who has been issued a permit or license to carry by any state or a political subdivision of any state. For the purposes of this legislation DC and the various US teritories are considered states.

Driver's licenses aren't a right either....but there is mandatory reciprocity for those.

[nicki]

The issue is to get the some Senators to sponsor this as a amendment, like the credit card bill.

The Pink Pistols already put out the press release, I made some calls, but we need to get some traction on this.

BTW, personally we need to go further than just the 50 state carry.

We need to throw in things like standardizing no carry zones or so called "sensitive zones". The criteria on safety zones needs to be strict scrutiny, compelling public safety interest.

We need to throw in 50 state castle doctrine, we need consistency regarding what is legal use of force.

We also should slip in that open carry is a right, but that states can regulate issuance of concealed weapons permits on a non discriminatory basis and that objective standards will be fair, not burdensome.

Put in a provision that violation of gun rights is a Fed crime, subject to both civil and criminal prosecution.

After all, fundamental rights should have a system for redress in the Federal court system.

Nicki

[Shotgun Man]

Probably wouldn't stand up to judicial review if they did it. States rights, and all that.

You gotta be kidding me.

The commerce clause trumps states' rights (almost) every time. We here in CA tried legalizing medical marijuana but were preempted by federal legislation born under the commerce clause. I have no doubt this CCW reciprocity would survive judicial review.

As an aside, I too decry hate crime legislation, but it is here with us to stay, foisted upon us by namby-pamby, thumb-sucking moron voters and politicians. This is political judo at its best.

Kinda reminds me of one of the plaintiffs in one of our lawsuits-- a lesbian who wants a CCW to protect her from gay-bashing. We cited in our pleadings that the CA legislature has found that gays are more likely to be subjected to violent attacks, which was part of the stated legislative purpose behind CA's hate crime legislation.

[7x57]

Being a California resident, I can't wait to carry concealed in Manhattan on my Utah permit :cool2:

Is that before or after the repeated Federal lawsuits necessary to teach NYPD that rubber bullets, tear gas, and fire hoses are not appropriate means of response to armed citizens? :p

The amount of re-training required may well be proportional to the duration of the denial of civil rights. :eek:

7x57

[7x57]

As an aside, I too decry hate crime legislation, but it is here with us to stay, foisted upon us by namby-pamby, thumb-sucking moron voters and politicians. This is political judo at its best.


You're thinking that we can define violation of the RKBA as a hate crime? Oh, *please* Brer Bear.... :43:

While I think hate crimes legislation are probably illegal, I'd go for this anyway because it might start to make certain people think more carefully about whether they want the government to have the power to define special thought crimes (which is what hate crimes are, since the only difference with an ordinary crime is inside the criminal's head). I'd also recommend serious efforts (mostly in other states) to define violence against anti-abortion protesters and traditional marriage activists as hate crimes.

Then we offer to go back to limiting the government's ability to punish thoughts, or we use the unconstitutional system we're stuck with.

7x57

[383green]

Hmm, I think I should look into getting a CCW in "any state", just to dodge the mad rush in the unlikely event that this passes. If I correctly understand the text of the proposed bill, I wouldn't necessarily need to get in the long line for a Utah CCW because I'd be looking for the easiest CCW permit to get, as opposed to the one with the largest amount of reciprocity.

[Shotgun Man]

Hmm, I think I should look into getting a CCW in "any state", just to dodge the mad rush in the unlikely event that this passes. If I correctly understand the text of the proposed bill, I wouldn't necessarily need to get in the long line for a Utah CCW because I'd be looking for the easiest CCW permit to get, as opposed to the one with the largest amount of reciprocity.

Is there a long line for Utah? Where then should one go? What is truly the easiest?

[383green]

Is there a long line for Utah? Where then should one go? What is truly the easiest?

I don't know personally, but I recall seeing statements about Utah's CCW process being very backlogged. I presume that a lot of folks go for Utah CCWs to get the largest number of states offering reciprocity out of just one permit, and I'm just speculating that if I didn't care about reciprocity, maybe another state's CCW would be more convenient for me to get than Utah's. I could be talking entirely out of my backside, though. ;)

[Shotgun Man]

Well, this may be a point that should be made to the bill's sponsors, or current Judiciary Committee members. It's not to late to change the wording.

Edited: Actually, when you read the text of the bill itself (rather than the description on the website), there's no problem.



It says nothing about the state in which carry occurs having to have a permitting system at all, at any level of government. It just says "in any State, subject to the laws in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried." This implies that , except for rules governing carry in specific types of places (schools, etc.), California (or even Illinois or Wisconsin) laws would not apply to a non-resident, but the laws of the person's home state would. So, with a Florida CWL, you could strap up like Isaac Hayes in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" and walk right down the street in San Francisco.

To the above poster, read this post and then reply.

[383green]

Actually, the way it is worded right now, the license must be from the state where you reside.

That's not how I read it. It appears to me that:

Section (1) says that a person who has a CCW in any state may carry in any state, and there is no mention that either the state which issued the CCW or the state in which the firearm is being carried must be the person's state of residence.

Section (2) says that in cases where section (1) isn't applicable, if a person can carry in their own state of residence, then they can also carry in any state.

So, section (1) provides 50-state reciprocity for anybody who has a CCW permit, but it's not worded such that the permit must be from their own state of residence.

Furthermore, section (2) lets people from no-permit-needed states like Vermont carry anywhere, without needing to jump through the hoops of getting a permit from some other state.

[Shotgun Man]

That's not how I read it. It appears to me that:
Section (1) says that a person who has a CCW in any state may carry in any state, and there is no mention of either the state which issued the CCW or the state in which the firearm is being carried must be the person's state of residence.

Section (2) says that in cases where section (1) isn't applicable, if a person can carry in their own state of residence, then they can also carry in any state.
So, section (1) provides 50-state reciprocity for anybody who has a CCW permit, but it's not worded such that the permit must be from their own state of residence.

Furthermore, section (2) lets people from no-permit-needed states like Vermont carry anywhere, without needing to jump through the hoops of getting a permit from some other state.

Astute analysis. I agree.

[yellowfin]

Non resident permits would still get you the other states, so it's still worth doing. I carry almost everywhere on my New Hampshire and Pennsylvania non resident. My next one will probably be Maine's while I wait 9 stinking months for NY. :mad:

[GaryV]

That's not how I read it.

You're right. I realized my mistake right away and deleted the post, but I was a little too late, and you guys caught me. This could still lead to a problem for CA residents though, because you're still bound by the laws of your home state, not the issuing state. I can imagine some messed up ways that could be interpreted.

[383green]

I think that when 50-state reciprocity was discussed before, various folks speculated that if it passed, some or all states might eliminate their non-resident permit programs since they would become unnecessary. While that wouldn't be so nice for us Californians in non-issuing counties, I would speculate that in a case like this, a state like Montana would start liberally issuing non-resident permits to Californians just out of sheer orneriness. :chris:

[383green]

You're right. I realized my mistake right away and deleted the post, but I was a little too late, and you guys caught me.

It's cool. It's hard to wade through that legalese. I need to look up "notwithstanding" every time something like this comes up to remind myself of what it means. :p

[Shotgun Man]

You're right. I realized my mistake right away and deleted the post, but I was a little too late, and you guys caught me. This could still lead to a problem for CA residents though, because you're still bound by the laws of your home state, not the issuing state. I can imagine some messed up ways that could be interpreted.

If a federal law preempts state law, the state law is necessarily invalid.

[yellowfin]

If a federal law preempts state law, the state law is necessarily invalid.Unless by a series of very wrongly decided court decisions the law is twisted and rendered meaningless. *cough**Cruikshank**Miller**cough*

[GaryV]

If a federal law preempts state law, the state law is necessarily invalid.

Except that, in this case, the federal law specifically states that you are still bound by the carry laws of the state in which you reside. It doesn't preempt any part of state law except reciprocity.

[Shotgun Man]

Except that, in this case, the federal law specifically states that you are still bound by the carry laws of the state in which you reside. It doesn't preempt any part of state law except reciprocity.

I did not catch that part. Can you please show it to me?

[DDT]

I did not catch that part. Can you please show it to me?

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

[DDT]

Does that really apply to licenses issued by one state to residents of another state? I can't believe that's true.

Ever hear of someone getting married in Vegas or Hawaii?

[lioneaglegriffin]

Plant those seeds plant like the wind.

as to Utah CCW's being backlogged so what?

The whole point of getting a Utah was that i was good in multiple states, with this law any OOS CCW would be good. So get a florida CCW or something.
did some looking seems that OH, VA, PA have non-resident.

[GaryV]

As far as choosing which state you get a permit from, you would be better off looking for the one with the fewest restrictions, since it's the terms of the permit itself, not the carry laws of the state you're in, that apply. For example, Florida's license allows you to carry any weapon (although this bill does specify guns), and as many as you please, as long as they are concealed and not full-auto. Licenses from many other states are far more limited.

[Dirtbozz]

.......While that wouldn't be so nice for us Californians in non-issuing counties, I would speculate that in a case like this, a state like Montana would start liberally issuing non-resident permits to Californians just out of sheer orneriness. :chris:

I don't think "orneriness" is the right term. They, in my opinion, would do it because they believe in Freedom. :79:

[yellowfin]

I use PA's to carry in TX, LA (that's Louisiana, not the great embarrassment of CA), MS, and TN, and of course PA. For $26 and 3 weeks wait time for 5 years coverage ya can't beat it.

[Shotgun Man]

`Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

`Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof:

Yeah, that saying that notwithstanding any state law, you can CCW if you've gots a permit.

You've proved my point.

[DDT]

Yeah, that saying that notwithstanding any state law, you can CCW if you've gots a permit.

You've proved my point.

Sorry, my bad, misunderstood the original statement that he posted. I thought he was saying that you had to follow the laws in the state of carry not the state of residence.

you do have to follow the laws in the sate of carry:

"subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried"

I don't see where residence has anything to do with anything unless you reside in a state which doesn't require a permit at all.

[383green]

I use PA's to carry in TX, LA (that's Louisiana, not the great embarrassment of CA), MS, and TN, and of course PA. For $26 and 3 weeks wait time for 5 years coverage ya can't beat it.

Can it be obtained without a trip outside of CA? About the only states outside of CA that I could foresee wanting to go to are NV and AZ, so I figure I'd either want a fully remote-controlled permit, or one from a state I might actually want to go to.

[CSDGuy]

Astute analysis. I agree.
That analysis was basically what I said quite a few posts ago...;)

[tankerman]

Probably wouldn't stand up to judicial review if they did it. States rights, and all that.Which state's rights would that be? The one that allows the states to trump the Constitutuion and restrict the 2nd?

[DDT]

Which state's rights would that be? The one that allows the states to trump the Constitutuion and restrict the 2nd?

The second amendment has only applied to the state of California for a month. Things don't happen over night.

[383green]

Regarding PA's non-resident permits, I found this disappointing detail:

A Pennsylvania license cannot be issued to a resident of another state who does not possess a current license or permit or similar document to carry a firearm issued by their home state if a license is provided for by the laws of that state

:(

[TheBundo]

Can it be obtained without a trip outside of CA? About the only states outside of CA that I could foresee wanting to go to are NV and AZ, so I figure I'd either want a fully remote-controlled permit, or one from a state I might actually want to go to.

FL & UT that I know of. Look in the training forum

[383green]

FL & UT that I know of. Look in the training forum

Thanks. I'm reading the Florida application instructions now:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/application_instructions/Concealed%20Weapon_ApplicationInstructions.pdf

[RomanDad]

Heller said that CCW can be regulated by the states. So at this point in time, given the (immature) case law that we have to work with, in the eyes of the courts those five or six states still are not violating the constitution.

Actually it DIDNT.... (Precision in Language matters a great deal in these issues.)

Heller said that laws PROHIBITING the carrying of concealed weapons were constitutional. That's ALL IT SAID on the subject.

The only two States in the union that DON'T have laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms are Vermont and Alaska. And I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.

Heller did not say that States that allow the LICENSING of concealed, loaded firearms so that they may be used to exercise the 2nd amendment right of self defense OUTSIDE THE HOME, could be administered in an UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER. It also did not say that states could pass laws that would prevent ANY SORT of carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for purposes of exercising the second amendment right to self defense.


I know it will sound like Im splitting hairs, but those hairs are significant.

[7x57]

And I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.


This is definitely incorrect, since there are *plenty* of people who think the whole country should be Vermont carry.

7x57

[383green]

And I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.

Well, as long as we're being very precise, I suggest that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons. ;)

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I see no logical reason to treat concealed vs. open bearing differently, or to restrict the types of arms to be borne (i.e., pistols, rifles, shotguns, submachineguns, knives, clubs, pointy sticks, brass knuckles, etc.). I believe that all of the above should be unrestricted.

[TheBundo]

Thanks. I'm reading the Florida application instructions now:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/application_instructions/Concealed%20Weapon_ApplicationInstructions.pdf

I took this course, which cover both UT & FL, and sent in the applications for both.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=189606

[leitung]

So if this passes, my Maine CCW will be good!? Sweet...

I will be making a b line to SF to stand at Haight & Ashbury with my 1911 strapped up.. Just for the feeling of it..

Nachos will be shortly behind that..

[nick]

The second amendment has only applied to the state of California for a month. Things don't happen over night.

It's applied to it for a while. It was only recognized as such a month and a half ago.

[yellowfin]

Actually it DIDNT.... (Precision in Language matters a great deal in these issues.)

Heller said that laws PROHIBITING the carrying of concealed weapons were constitutional. That's ALL IT SAID on the subject.

The only two States in the union that DON'T have laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms are Vermont and Alaska. And I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.

Heller did not say that States that allow the LICENSING of concealed, loaded firearms so that they may be used to exercise the 2nd amendment right of self defense OUTSIDE THE HOME, could be administered in an UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANNER. It also did not say that states could pass laws that would prevent ANY SORT of carrying of loaded firearms outside the home for purposes of exercising the second amendment right to self defense.


I know it will sound like Im splitting hairs, but those hairs are significant.To split hairs even more, it said laws regarding the carrying of DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL weapons were Constitutional--NOT pistols. Meaning you can CC a common pistol all you like, just not a Glock 18 or LAAW.

[ilbob]

Driver's licenses aren't a right either....but there is mandatory reciprocity for those.
I think you misunderstand that situation.

States accept each others driver's licenses because there is an interstate agreement on such things, not because of any federal law requiring it.

[Untamed1972]

I think you misunderstand that situation.

States accept each others driver's licenses because there is an interstate agreement on such things, not because of any federal law requiring it.


Because it is an interstate commerce issue as well as that "freedom of movement" thing.....I forget the exact terminology for that one. To me CCW should be handled the same way. Because to restrict it across state lines means you're not free to move about the country in the same manner that you are in your home state.

Marriage licenses are required to be recognize in every state regardless of the state of issue.

[nicki]

I would like no permits to carry and I would like to be able to carry either open or concealed anything I want.

A short barreled M4 select fire with a 40mm grenade launcher would be what I would like to have handy in my car or over my shoulder:43:

That being said, I don't think alot of people in public would be very comfortable with me carrying that. This isn't Israel where bikini clad women do that on the beach.

Although I don't like permits, it is something I can live with for CCW permits.

As far as open carry, most people won't do it even if it becomes accepted custom.

Why I am willing to live with CCW permits really comes down to public safety.

I to me the issue is not carrying the gun, it is the aftermath.

If I get involved in a shooting, questions are going to arise about my competence, especially if a stray round hits a innocent bystander.

Even if you don't hit a bystander, you still would be potentially liable for your stray bullets that would do property damage.

Walking into the legal system without showing that you had some kind of documented training I think would be a disaster.

Personally I will not consider carrying on a regular basis unless I could pass the same shooting qualifications as local law enforcement and that my score was in the upper half.

I figure the better preparred I am, the more likely I will never have to shoot in the first place.

Nicki

[ilbob]

Because it is an interstate commerce issue as well as that "freedom of movement" thing.....I forget the exact terminology for that one. To me CCW should be handled the same way. Because to restrict it across state lines means you're not free to move about the country in the same manner that you are in your home state.

Marriage licenses are required to be recognize in every state regardless of the state of issue.
Whatever terminology it is, it is about an interstate agreeemnt to accept each other's driver's licenses. Not a federal issue.

Marriage licenses are not recognized outside of your home state. Your marriage is though (presuming it is an actual marriage and not a sham same sex "marriage").

Try to get a judge in CA to marry you on a marriage license issued in NY and see what happens.

[motorhead]

everyone write boxer and feinstein and urge them to support it! i can't believe i posted that with a straight face.

[RomanDad]

This is definitely incorrect, since there are *plenty* of people who think the whole country should be Vermont carry.

7x57

And can you point me to the text of the bill or the federal court case where those people are suggesting that be the law?

[liketoshoot]

everyone write boxer and feinstein and urge them to support it! i can't believe i posted that with a straight face.

:rofl2:

[7x57]

And can you point me to the text of the bill or the federal court case where those people are suggesting that be the law?

No, because they aren't stupid enough to raise a hand that will come back a bloody stump. I said they believed in Vermont Carry, not that they were morons who believed in strategies guaranteed to fail at this time.

Your assertion was not about action, it was about belief, so this is just a red herring anyway.

7x57

[RomanDad]

No, because they aren't stupid enough to raise a hand that will come back a bloody stump. I said they believed in Vermont Carry, not that they were morons who believed in strategies guaranteed to fail at this time.

Your assertion was not about action, it was about belief, so this is just a red herring anyway.

7x57
Sorry. This thread is ABOUT ACTION.... A BILL before the U.S. Congress. Nowhere does that bill "SUGGEST" (the word I used..... I didnt use the word "Think" that you keep using... ) that laws against the concealing of firearms without license in the 48 states that have them should be repealed.

... I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.




Just further emphasizes my point.... PRECISION MATTERS.

[7x57]

Actually it DIDNT.... (Precision in Language matters a great deal in these issues.)


Hmm. We'll remember that piece of good advice.


Heller said that laws PROHIBITING the carrying of concealed weapons were constitutional. That's ALL IT SAID on the subject.


Odd, later you insist that the discussion is confined to s371, yet here you are discussing Heller? Is it possible that other topics are discussed in this thread when they are relevant to the main discussion? We want to be precise about these things.


The only two States in the union that DON'T have laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms are Vermont and Alaska. And I don't think ANYBODY is suggesting that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons.


Quoted more fully for the context. The preceding sentence is about the carry laws of Vermont and Alaska, not specifically s371. A broader discussion has been introduced. Precision matters, I hear.

The bolded text quite clearly is about "suggesting," not political action at this time. The laws of the two Vermont Carry states have been mentioned, signifying that the context is expanded outside of the text of s371. "Introducing bills and filing federal court cases" is not within the common meaning of "suggest" either. Suggestions are not actions, though one might suggest doing just those things. It is also unconditional, since we're being precise at your suggestion; you said "anybody," in capitals. Precisely, that would mean there are no persons suggesting it, and disproof would therefore consist in finding at least one person who so suggests.

Your words. Live with them.

Well, as long as we're being very precise,


Good idea. I hear that Precision in Language matters a great deal in these issues.


I suggest that the other 48 States should get RID of their PROHIBITIONS against carrying Concealed weapons. ;)


That is one person suggesting Vermont Carry for the whole country and constitutes a sufficient disproof.

I would like no permits to carry and I would like to be able to carry either open or concealed anything I want.


That's two. We don't need two since your PRECISE LANGUAGE said that "not ANYBODY" was suggesting this, but still, it is two. I imagine 383green and/or Niki would be happy to confirm their suggestions if you wish to question them.

And can you point me to the text of the bill or the federal court case where those people are suggesting that be the law?

Having had two people post in contradiction to your PRECISE LANGUAGE, you now change the subject completely. Standard tactic when you've lost on the original subject, and useful if no one notices the gambit. Your comment was about suggestions, and bills are not suggestions but proposed commands.

Sorry. This thread is ABOUT ACTION.... A BILL before the U.S. Congress.


It was, but that isn't what you posted about. You posted, precisely, about ANYBODY. Very few people are directly involved with writing or lobbying for s371. You can't draw conclusions about every single person from the text of s371, so you are not talking about s371 unless you're just incoherent.


Nowhere does that bill "SUGGEST" (the word I used.....


Bills do not "suggest." They command. Legislative bodies do have a mechanism to "suggest," but they are called something different, such as "resolutions." Precision matters, I hear.

In any case, your comment was in a context where you had mentioned the laws of two states in the sentence preceding. If bills are suggestions to you, the laws of those states would surely be suggestions. And while Vermont doesn't seem to ever have had carry restrictions thanks to it's state supreme court, Alaska used to have CC restrictions and I believe that was changed by the legislature and not by the courts. I suppose if it would make you happy one could easily find the text of the Alaska bill that, when passed, mandated Vermont carry.

For me to go to the effort you'd have to convince me that you wouldn't just dodge the point and continue arguing just to avoid admitting you were wrong, however.


I didnt use the word "Think" that you keep using... )


I used it because I assumed you were familiar with the normal rules of English. But perhaps that's why precision matters so much to you. So to be excruciatingly clear: "suggest" means to propose; in the normal course of events one proposes what one believes is wise, or thinks if synonymous usage is not precise enough for you. Granted this is not absolutely true; one can propose something for purely tactical reasons, and then there is the whole area of figures of speech. One might propose something to satire an idea.

Fluent speakers and readers recognize figures of speech and synonymous usage from context, but I shall attempt to reduce my usage of idiomatic language in order to make interpretation simpler for you.


Just further emphasizes my point.... PRECISION MATTERS.

That's not a point I'd want to further emphasize if I were in your position.

7x57

[RomanDad]

Hmm. We'll remember that piece of good advice.



Odd, later you insist that the discussion is confined to s371, yet here you are discussing Heller? Is it possible that other topics are discussed in this thread when they are relevant to the main discussion? We want to be precise about these things.



Quoted more fully for the context. The preceding sentence is about the carry laws of Vermont and Alaska, not specifically s371. A broader discussion has been introduced. Precision matters, I hear.

The bolded text quite clearly is about "suggesting," not political action at this time. The laws of the two Vermont Carry states have been mentioned, signifying that the context is expanded outside of the text of s371. "Introducing bills and filing federal court cases" is not within the common meaning of "suggest" either. Suggestions are not actions, though one might suggest doing just those things. It is also unconditional, since we're being precise at your suggestion; you said "anybody," in capitals. Precisely, that would mean there are no persons suggesting it, and disproof would therefore consist in finding at least one person who so suggests.

Your words. Live with them.



Good idea. I hear that Precision in Language matters a great deal in these issues.



That is one person suggesting Vermont Carry for the whole country and constitutes a sufficient disproof.



That's two. We don't need two since your PRECISE LANGUAGE said that "not ANYBODY" was suggesting this, but still, it is two. I imagine 383green and/or Niki would be happy to confirm their suggestions if you wish to question them.



Having had two people post in contradiction to your PRECISE LANGUAGE, you now change the subject completely. Standard tactic when you've lost on the original subject, and useful if no one notices the gambit. Your comment was about suggestions, and bills are not suggestions but proposed commands.



It was, but that isn't what you posted about. You posted, precisely, about ANYBODY. Very few people are directly involved with writing or lobbying for s371. You can't draw conclusions about every single person from the text of s371, so you are not talking about s371 unless you're just incoherent.



Bills do not "suggest." They command. Legislative bodies do have a mechanism to "suggest," but they are called something different, such as "resolutions." Precision matters, I hear.

In any case, your comment was in a context where you had mentioned the laws of two states in the sentence preceding. If bills are suggestions to you, the laws of those states would surely be suggestions. And while Vermont doesn't seem to ever have had carry restrictions thanks to it's state supreme court, Alaska used to have CC restrictions and I believe that was changed by the legislature and not by the courts. I suppose if it would make you happy one could easily find the text of the Alaska bill that, when passed, mandated Vermont carry.

For me to go to the effort you'd have to convince me that you wouldn't just dodge the point and continue arguing just to avoid admitting you were wrong, however.



I used it because I assumed you were familiar with the normal rules of English. But perhaps that's why precision matters so much to you. So to be excruciatingly clear: "suggest" means to propose; in the normal course of events one proposes what one believes is wise, or thinks if synonymous usage is not precise enough for you. Granted this is not absolutely true; one can propose something for purely tactical reasons, and then there is the whole area of figures of speech. One might propose something to satire an idea.

Fluent speakers and readers recognize figures of speech and synonymous usage from context, but I shall attempt to reduce my usage of idiomatic language in order to make interpretation simpler for you.



That's not a point I'd want to further emphasize if I were in your position.

7x57

Bulgron said that this law might be found unconstitutional due to states rights.

Yellowfin asked how some state can be allowed to deny a fundamental right as an exercise of state rights.

Bulgron responded by MISQUOTING Heller.

The language he USED was INCORRECT. Heller did Not say what he said it did. THAT'S why I was discussing Heller in the context of THIS BILL.



Why are you always trying to prove something and provoke something with these posts of yours?

[7x57]

Why are you always trying to prove something and provoke something with these posts of yours?

Oddly, I wonder the same thing quite often when I read your posts.

7x57

[RomanDad]

Oddly, I wonder the same thing quite often when I read your posts.

7x57
Im sorry if thats the case.

It is not my intention in the least.

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY... I dont know why you insist on being mine.

[7x57]

Im sorry if thats the case.

It is not my intention in the least.


Perhaps not, but the last time you took it to PMs, where you were irrational and abusive. That isn't relevant to anything I've posted on this thread, but it isn't constructive.


I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY... I dont know why you insist on being mine.

If correcting errors makes you perceive me as an enemy, then I can't resolve that problem. I didn't regard your aside about nobody proposing Vermont carry to be a major line of argument, but it wasn't true and I simply commented on it casually. If that is a problem to you, you must perceive the world as being filled with enemies.

7x57

[383green]

I AM NOT YOUR ENEMY... I dont know why you insist on being mine.

He's not being your enemy. His logical analysis of what you wrote is correct and self-consistent, and I don't even detect any anger in it. You posted a statement which was factually incorrect (that being, that nobody would suggest that the whole country should have Vermont-style CCW), and a few of us pointed out the incorrectness of that statement, using our own opinions as the evidence.

Like 7x57 wrote, while this is a thread about a legal bill, your statement was presented as a general observation about people's beliefs, not limited to the context of s371 or any other bill. You may not have intended it to be that way, but that's the way you wrote it.

Now, everybody please calm down. Getting bent out of shape by this minor little mis-communication is just silly. :rolleyes:

[Untamed1972]

Whatever terminology it is, it is about an interstate agreeemnt to accept each other's driver's licenses. Not a federal issue.

Marriage licenses are not recognized outside of your home state. Your marriage is though (presuming it is an actual marriage and not a sham same sex "marriage").

Try to get a judge in CA to marry you on a marriage license issued in NY and see what happens.

That makes no sense....I'm not asking CA to issue me a UT CCW permit. THe permit is issued to me by the state issuing that permit. But the permit as being a legally issued gov't license should be accepted in all states. Just like a marriage or driver's license.

The marriage is recognized because of the license that was issued for it. The marriage is legal in all 50 states based on the license issued in the state the marriage occurred. How is that any different than CCW? The permit is issued in one state, and recognized by ALL states since it is a valid gov't issued license.

[tankerman]

The second amendment has only applied to the state of California for a month. Things don't happen over night.Really, so the US Constitiution has only applied to California for a month....Thanks for the history lesson bro.

Pehaps you should add a legal disclaimer to your sig-line, so no one inadvertently takes your advice.

[383green]

Really, so the US Constitiution has only applied to California for a month....Thanks for the history lesson bro.

Pehaps you should add a legal disclaimer to your sig-line, so no one inadvertently takes your advice.

The Second Amendment has only been legally recognized as being applicable to the state of California for about a month. Not liking it doesn't make it less true.

[tankerman]

The Second Amendment has only been legally recognized as being applicable to the state of California for about a month. Not liking it doesn't make it less true.You are incorrect. There is a difference between current interpretation and legal recognition.

Acting like you are right, doesn't make it more true.:rolleyes:

[ilbob]

You seem to be unable to understand the difference between state permission to get married (aka a marriage license) and actually being married. A marriage license does not mean you are married, nor is it a requirement in all states (google common law marriage if you must) to become married.

You also seem obsessed with the wrong idea that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution is somehow responsible for states allowing non-residents to drive in their state, or maybe somehow it is an interstate commerce issue. Its neither. The states got together and made a deal among themselves to allow out of state drivers with valid out of state licenses to drive within their jurisdiction. It would not surprise me a whole lot if the federal government encouraged this, but they don't force it.

That makes no sense....I'm not asking CA to issue me a UT CCW permit. THe permit is issued to me by the state issuing that permit. But the permit as being a legally issued gov't license should be accepted in all states. Just like a marriage or driver's license.

The marriage is recognized because of the license that was issued for it. The marriage is legal in all 50 states based on the license issued in the state the marriage occurred. How is that any different than CCW? The permit is issued in one state, and recognized by ALL states since it is a valid gov't issued license.

[Untamed1972]

You seem to be unable to understand the difference between state permission to get married (aka a marriage license) and actually being married. A marriage license does not mean you are married, nor is it a requirement in all states (google common law marriage if you must) to become married.

You also seem obsessed with the wrong idea that the full faith and credit clause of the constitution is somehow responsible for states allowing non-residents to drive in their state, or maybe somehow it is an interstate commerce issue. Its neither. The states got together and made a deal among themselves to allow out of state drivers with valid out of state licenses to drive within their jurisdiction. It would not surprise me a whole lot if the federal government encouraged this, but they don't force it.

Whatever! sheesh......

BTW...common law marriage is only recognized in about 10 states in the US.....CA is not one of them.

[7x57]

His logical analysis of what you wrote is correct and self-consistent, and I don't even detect any anger in it.


I'm going to regret even posting again on this, but like a moth to the candle....

Of course I wasn't angry about anything--I thought it was something of a side point and don't know why he took it so personally (though in retrospect there is some history that could have tipped me off). In fact I only posted the wise-guy line-by-line commentary because I'd taken him literally and precisely, and the amazing response was to the effect that I should be more precise. I can do that, but it's usually a bad idea to encourage me to be more precise than I attempt to be already. :eek:


You may not have intended it to be that way, but that's the way you wrote it.


Somewhat in RomanDad's defense, from his later comments it may be that what he *meant* to say was to the effect that no one was introducing Vermont-carry legislation, just s371 which is simply reciprocity. I have no intention of reading back carefully enough to see if that's precisely it, but it fits the general discussion at least. Then I can understand that when writing quickly this could inadvertently turn into "no one is suggesting" as a kind of imprecise metaphorical statement. I'm kind of reading his later statements back into his earlier one, though, so it's hard to know if I'm right unless he chooses to say one way or the other.

7x57

[Sgt Raven]

That makes no sense....I'm not asking CA to issue me a UT CCW permit. THe permit is issued to me by the state issuing that permit. But the permit as being a legally issued gov't license should be accepted in all states. Just like a marriage or driver's license.

The marriage is recognized because of the license that was issued for it. The marriage is legal in all 50 states based on the license issued in the state the marriage occurred. How is that any different than CCW? The permit is issued in one state, and recognized by ALL states since it is a valid gov't issued license.

Wrong the DOMA says no state has to recognize the marriage of same sex partners. So the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply for all marriages. :TFH:

[DDT]

Acting like you are right, doesn't make it more true.:rolleyes:

Obviously you have nothing to learn here. I would appreciate it though if you didn't spread your "knowledge" too widely. There is plenty of fertilizer in this forum already.

[Untamed1972]

Wrong the DOMA says no state has to recognize the marriage of same sex partners. So the Full Faith and Credit clause doesn't apply for all marriages. :TFH:


This thread is offically FUBAR!!!!

EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!!!!!

(Although it is only a matter of time before same sex marriage is covered and we all know it! So why shouldn't interstate CCW reciprocity be as well?)

[HondaMasterTech]

Its your hole. You can put anything you want in it. What about marriage isnt about religion? Meaning, it seems like the ones who argue against it are using religion as their support. ( Ignore if deviation from original topic is not preferred. )

[lioneaglegriffin]

Its your hole. You can put anything you want in it. What about marriage isnt about religion? Meaning, it seems like the ones who argue against it are using religion as their support. ( Ignore if deviation from original topic is not preferred. )

the fact that that when you get into drunken marriage in Vegas the guy says "by the power vested in me by the State of Nevada" not by our Holy Father above.

[HondaMasterTech]

Of course, but Im talking about arguments against same sex marriage.

[lioneaglegriffin]

Of course, but Im talking about arguments against same sex marriage.

oh wanted some one to cite religion against same sex marriage.

Off the top of my head Sodom & Gomorrah=Sodom=Sodomy=Gay=Bad|

why didn't they name it Gomorrahy?

Anyway God burned down an ancient equivalent of San Fransisco. therefore Homosexuality must of been one of the abomination's God was least tolerant of tied with lying like when he struck those liars dead.

Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. :D

The gist is Christians are funny until they get the pitchforks.

Note: I am a Baptist/Non-Denominational Christian that is parodying how the average Christian thinks and in no way meant to representative of Christian beliefs.

[Fate]

I skipped from page one to page 3 (missing posts 41-80)...boy oh boy did this thread veer off route between then and here.

[lioneaglegriffin]

On topic is there anyone else I should call other than the a Stingy CCW holder like DiFi?

my rep is Laura Richardson. Should i bother?

[lioneaglegriffin]

I skipped from page one to page 3 (missing posts 41-80)...boy oh boy did this thread veer off route between then and here.

prop 8 was the best thing to happen to CA, we always have something to talk about now. ;)

[nicki]

Guys, the point of this thread was to focus on adding pro gun riders to a hate crime bill that is supposed to by conventional wisdom, pass without much fanfare.

We got national park carry as a amendment to credit cards.

We would have gotten most DC laws overturned with a rider onto the DC voting rights, but the sponsor pulled the bill. Apparently make a futile defense of unconstitutional laws was more important than gun rights.

For those of you who really don't want the hate crimes bill to pass, the only way to stop it is with poison pill amendments.

The best poison pills are those that are somewhat related to the bill. If this bill dies, Obama is in deep crap with the Gay Lobby.

He is already having a revolt on other issues, he has screwed up on two issues already, three strikes and he may be out with many Gays.

Right now for everyone on this forum who is against the hate crimes bill for what every reason, the bill is a done deal if it stays the way it is.

The house passed it, the senate will, and Obama will sign it.

If Obama is faced with a hate crimes bill that has pro gun provisions in it, no matter which way he votes, we are ahead of where we would be if we did nothing.

If I am wrong, please tell me how I am wrong, really, I'm not afraid to take honest constructive comments because acknowledging weaknesses allows you to grow stronger.

I was hoping to start a constructive thread, but it has apparently been hijacked to talk moral issues.

Moderator, I regret to ask you to lock the thread.

Nicki

[tankerman]

Obviously you have nothing to learn here. I would appreciate it though if you didn't spread your "knowledge" too widely. There is plenty of fertilizer in this forum already.Thank 'Professor', go now Mary-Ann and Gilligan are waiting.

[lioneaglegriffin]

Guys, the point of this thread was to focus on adding pro gun riders to a hate crime bill that is supposed to by conventional wisdom, pass without much fanfare.

We got national park carry as a amendment to credit cards.

We would have gotten most DC laws overturned with a rider onto the DC voting rights, but the sponsor pulled the bill. Apparently make a futile defense of unconstitutional laws was more important than gun rights.

For those of you who really don't want the hate crimes bill to pass, the only way to stop it is with poison pill amendments.

The best poison pills are those that are somewhat related to the bill. If this bill dies, Obama is in deep crap with the Gay Lobby.

He is already having a revolt on other issues, he has screwed up on two issues already, three strikes and he may be out with many Gays.

Right now for everyone on this forum who is against the hate crimes bill for what every reason, the bill is a done deal if it stays the way it is.

The house passed it, the senate will, and Obama will sign it.

If Obama is faced with a hate crimes bill that has pro gun provisions in it, no matter which way he votes, we are ahead of where we would be if we did nothing.

If I am wrong, please tell me how I am wrong, really, I'm not afraid to take honest constructive comments because acknowledging weaknesses allows you to grow stronger.

I was hoping to start a constructive thread, but it has apparently been hijacked to talk moral issues.

Moderator, I regret to ask you to lock the thread.

Nicki

no matter what a persons stance on same sex unions is they should not be against a hate crime bill IMO. Though some are against because if a hate crime covers crimes that aren't necessarily hate crime but become one because of the victim. i understand that.

[Joe]

tagged for future reading

[bdsmchs]

no matter what a persons stance on same sex unions is they should not be against a hate crime bill IMO.

If you're against gay marriage, then you're pretty much a bigot. Why wouldn't bigots be against a hate crime bill?

[7x57]

If you're against gay marriage, then you're pretty much a bigot.


Hmm, and I used to respect you right up until that statement too. :( I regard that itself as being a bigoted statement, if of a familiar kind.


Why wouldn't bigots be against a hate crime bill?

They would be against it if they thought it aimed at them, but for it if they thought it could be used as a weapon.

The theoretical reason to oppose hate crime legislation is that it's thought crime, and only fools and children give their government permission to regulate thought.

The practical reason to oppose hate crime legislation is that it's based on the same fallacy as gun control--that fear of punishment by the government alone can be used to regulate behavior. If that were true, then you would have no need to be armed--the threat of being caught after the fact by police would deter crime and keep you safe.

Do you really want to go another step down that rabbit hole? Or have we learned enough about the folly of trying to deter crime by giving the government ever greater power to magically divine motive and to punish?

The way to deter violent crime, whatever the thought crime you might think motivates it, is to change the economics in favor of the potential prey and against the potential predator. The nature of predator-prey economics is that the predator must win many encounters while the prey only needs to win one, and that the prey has far more at stake than the predator. That is what arming citizens does--makes surviving many encounters a bad bet for the predator. As they saying goes, Samuel Colt made 'em equal. Because of the precise economics of the predator-prey relationship, It turns out that equal--or at least comparable--is enough.

Without effective arms, the odds overwhelmingly favor the criminal--the predator, whether motivated by money, ideology, a missed drug fix (actually this one is probably the least deterrable). That's what predators need. But if we arm the citizen, then it's far closer to even odds. Is the citizen, in this case the possible victim of a hate crime, willing to resist? You better believe it. He cannot choose to not have the encounter or (being law-abiding) it wouldn't happen anyway, and his odds of survival without resisting are poor, so the risk is definitely worth it from a survival standpoint (and that ignores the very real value of respecting yourself afterwards, rather than knowing yourself to be a coward all your life). But the criminal has the initiative, so he can choose to take another course of action. Not committing the crime raises his survival odds dramatically, and he only surrenders something he almost certainly valued less than his life--a wallet, an act of cruelty, whatever. Predators pass up hard prey and look for something easier. They have to.

Why do they have to? Because the criminal has to factor in more crimes. Most citizens will be the victims of a very small number of crimes in their lives--for many the number is zero, and for most "a few" muggings would be a terribly high number. To survive all of them, he raises his chance to survive one by a small power. Say his chance of surviving an encounter are ninety percent--then his odds of surviving two muggings in a lifetime are still eighty-one percent. But the criminal needs to survive many more if he is to achieve some goal attainable by violence, whether it is a career of robbery or of terrorizing some despised group. That means he has to raise his odds of surviving his entire career's encounters by a much larger number, making the odds of survival much smaller. Suppose he only commits twenty muggings, hate attacks, whatever in his life, but because some potential victims are armed he has only a ninety-five percent survival rate. Then his odds of surviving his career of crime are about thirty-six percent--not so great.

Notice that even though we gave the criminal better odds in the encounter--the citizen had a one in ten chance of dying, the criminal only one in twenty--the citizen can weigh an eighty percent chance of surviving versus, if we're talking hate crimes, something much less. On the other hand the criminal has a two in three chance of being killed at some point in his crime spree. Poor odds, and he's comparing it not against losing his life some other way (as the hate crime victim probably is) but simply against finding an easier line of work (if nothing else, burglarizing empty houses). The numbers are of course purely made up, but the effect is real. The nature of the predator-prey relationship requires predators to have overwhelming odds in their favor. Deny them those odds, and they must find a different strategy or go extinct.

You can either accept the economic calculation and go after the thing that works, which is denying the criminal the favorable odds a predator needs to survive as a predator, or you can substitute a technique that doesn't work and suffer the unintended side effects. Hate crime legislation doesn't work any more than other indirect deterrents work. And relying on things that don't work lead to ever more frantic attempts to make them work and a runaway feedback system of the kind that has Britain attempting to ban pointy kitchen knives and old men's walking sticks.

ETA: I might as well try to make this argument complete. One might object that "active killer" crimes are not subject to this analysis because the criminal does not expect to survive: he only need factor in one event, and only needs to survive until his goal is met (which might just be kill as many as possible before being stopped). This is true; predators are by definition focused on survival, and one who plans to die is no predator (nor is there any other biological analog, for organisms who behave as an active killer does do not survive even one generation). But by the same argument the law is of absolutely no deterrence at all; one who does not survive his crime is entirely beyond the reach of all human justice. It makes no actual difference whether shooting bystanders until your own death is even illegal! The only thing that matters is the rapidity with which opposing force is brought to bear, which again favors arming potential victims.

7x57

[lioneaglegriffin]

If you're against gay marriage, then you're pretty much a bigot. Why wouldn't bigots be against a hate crime bill?

if being sarcastic then: ok

if not:You don't understand why people are against gay marriage, people are fine with equal pay for gays and everything else and do not advocate violence against gays. But when it comes to Gay priest or anything remotely religious (marriage is not but it once was) thats when there is a problem.

Gays have a right to equality by any secular means but once they cross the border to the Grey country of Secular/Religious thats when the tempers flare.

[bdsmchs]

Gays have a right to equality by any secular means but once they cross the border to the Grey country of Secular/Religious thats when the tempers flare.

Marriage is a government institution, therefore it is secular.

Why can't they get married again?

[lioneaglegriffin]

Marriage is a government institution, therefore it is secular.

Why can't they get married again?

apparently you didn't read my whole post
let me help


if not:You don't understand why people are against gay marriage, people are fine with equal pay for gays and everything else and do not advocate violence against gays. But when it comes to Gay priest or anything remotely religious (marriage is not but it once was) thats when there is a problem.

[GoodEyeSniper]

Hmm, and I used to respect you right up until that statement too. :( I regard that itself as being a bigoted statement, if of a familiar kind.



They would be against it if they thought it aimed at them, but for it if they thought it could be used as a weapon.

The theoretical reason to oppose hate crime legislation is that it's thought crime, and only fools and children give their government permission to regulate thought.

The practical reason to oppose hate crime legislation is that it's based on the same fallacy as gun control--that fear of punishment by the government alone can be used to regulate behavior. If that were true, then you would have no need to be armed--the threat of being caught after the fact by police would deter crime and keep you safe.

Do you really want to go another step down that rabbit hole? Or have we learned enough about the folly of trying to deter crime by giving the government ever greater power to magically divine motive and to punish?

The way to deter violent crime, whatever the thought crime you might think motivates it, is to change the economics in favor of the potential prey and against the potential predator. The nature of predator-prey economics is that the predator must win many encounters while the prey only needs to win one, and that the prey has far more at stake than the predator. That is what arming citizens does. As they saying goes, Samuel Colt made 'em equal. It turns out, that's enough.

Without effective arms, the odds overwhelmingly favor the criminal--the predator, whether motivated by money, ideology, a missed drug fix (actually this one is probably the least deterrable). That's what predators need. But if we arm the citizen, then it's far closer to even odds. Is the citizen, in this case the possible victim of a hate crime, willing to resist? You better believe it. He cannot choose to not have the encounter or (being law-abiding) it wouldn't happen anyway, and his odds of survival without resisting are poor, so the risk is definitely worth it from a survival standpoint (and that ignores the very real value of respecting yourself afterwards, rather than knowing yourself to be a coward all your life). But the criminal has the initiative, so he can choose to take another course of action. Not committing the crime raises his survival odds dramatically, and he only surrenders something he almost certainly valued less than his life--a wallet, an act of cruelty, whatever.

Further, the criminal has to factor in more crimes. Most citizens will be the victims of a very small number of crimes in their lives--for many the number is zero, and for most "a few" muggings would be a terribly high number. To survive all of them, he raises his chance to survive one by a small power. But the criminal needs to survive many more if he is to achieve some goal attainable by violence, whether it is a career of robbery or of terrorizing some despised group. That means he has to raise his odds of surviving his entire career's encounters by a much larger number, making the odds of survival much smaller.

You can either accept the economic calculation and go after the thing that works, which is denying the criminal the favorable odds a predator needs to survive as a predator, or you can substitute a technique that doesn't work and suffer the unintended side effects. Hate crime legislation doesn't work any more than other indirect deterrents work. And relying on things that don't work lead to a runaway feedback system of the kind that has Britain attempting to ban pointy kitchen knives and old men's walking sticks.

7x57

I hope you don't mind me copying this to my hard drive, to use if this subject ever comes up elsewhere, giving you credit of course. Really great points, laid out very simply, to where even the most ignorant anti would have to see some truth to it, well maybe I'm aiming a little high on that one.

[7x57]

I hope you don't mind me copying this to my hard drive, to use if this subject ever comes up elsewhere, giving you credit of course. Really great points, laid out very simply, to where even the most ignorant anti would have to see some truth to it, well maybe I'm aiming a little high on that one.

No, feel free, I posted it publicly anyway. However, under the threat of being quoted I edited it a bit to make the numerical argument clearer. :D

7x57

[HondaMasterTech]

The thing I really like about this bill is that its benefits arent restricted to LGBT persons.

[lioneaglegriffin]

The thing I really like about this bill is that its benefits arent restricted to LGBT persons.

freedom is for everyone not just the oppressed. (they just might appreciate it more)

[MindBuilder]

[The national reciprocity law]Probably wouldn't stand up to judicial review if they did it. States rights, and all that.

Someone who can get the ear of the senators needs to suggest that the bill say something about how concealed carriers are needed in all fifty states to protect every state's citizens from death and also the economic damage to the entire country if the terrorists successfully carry out an attack in any state. That should take care of the state's rights issue, and make it a politically popular anti-terrorist measure at the same time. Throw in language about the concealed carriers being reserve militia members getting familiar with their weapons, to lock in the federal authority for the law.

There also seems to be a misunderstanding of Heller's comments about concealed carry. I could have missed it but I didn't see anything in Heller that said a ban on concealed carry is legal under the 2nd. The closest thing I saw was:
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.

But the court isn't really citing that approvingly. It's more like they're just mentioning it as a possibly legitimate infringement. By not specifically approving of that statement, they're making it clear that they're leaving the question open. Also, they were not briefed on the question of whether concealed carry should be allowed. What's more, even if banning concealed carry was actually constitutional in those days, that doesn't necessarily mean it still is. Back then the legislatures may have arguably had a reasonable belief that concealed carry caused excessive violence. Today we have statistics to prove that when concealed carry was legalized, it didn't cause a problem. The mathematical field of statistics wasn't even developed until the end of the 19th century, and the recording of homicides may not have been very complete or well studied. There also may have been a stigma then against hiding your weapon, whereas today it is considered uncivilized to scare the sheep with open carry. Today, legislatures have no excuse to infringe the right to bear arms concealed, even if they did then.

[KylaGWolf]

If a federal law preempts state law, the state law is necessarily invalid.

Actually a state law can trump federal law if the state law is more restrictive hence why ca has so many asinine gun laws.

[nick]

Actually a state law can trump federal law if the state law is more restrictive hence why ca has so many asinine gun laws.

But can it contradict a federal law?

[Natty Bumppo]

As others have noticed, isn't it odd how the proposed law seems to give reciprocity only to resident CCW holders? Folks in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles (just to name the major cities) who may have non-resident licenses would seem to be out in the cold. Too bad, that.

[DDT]

As others have noticed, isn't it odd how the proposed law seems to give reciprocity only to resident CCW holders? Folks in New York City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles (just to name the major cities) who may have non-resident licenses would seem to be out in the cold. Too bad, that.

The only conflict I see is in the original summary. I don't see anything in the actual law that says only resident CCW permits receive reciprocity.

[DDT]

Marriage is a government institution, therefore it is secular.

Why can't they get married again?

I suppose for the same reason brother and sister can't get married, or cousins or more than 2 people.

[Decoligny]

If the six states you're talking about is New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and Hawaii, they ARE violating the constitution because they don't allow ANY carry without a carry license which is may issue.

Not quite true for California. California allows Loaded Open Carry in about 90% of the State. Because about 90% of the State is unincorporated territory where discharge of a firearm is not prohibited. It also allows Unloaded Open Carry in incorporated cities and unincorporated areas where discharge of a firearm is prohibited. Just have to watch out for the 1,000 foot from K-12 school "Gun Free Zone" and places like public buildings.