PDA

View Full Version : Future reciprocity/bearing and magazine cap limits


Maestro Pistolero
03-23-2010, 12:18 PM
Let's fast forward to the time when a resident of another state is covered under either reciprocity, or a general right to bear that has been established.

Let's also assume the only gun they own only comes with a +10 magazine. How might that play into to CA law that limits magazine capacity? The gun and full-cap magazine is completely legal in most states.

Will they be denied their right to carry their only lawfully owned weapon into CA, due to mag limits?

OleCuss
03-23-2010, 12:25 PM
Yes, they will be denied that right. They will have to comply with California law as long as they are present within that state.

However, the kind of situation to which you refer could very well end up in court cases and used to liberalize the national reciprocity I hope will be happening in the next few years. Also, I expect that the days of the roster are numbered - and the high cap ban may also disappear.

So it may take a while but I have some hopes that the issue will go away.

Odd, isn't it, that American citizens exercising their 2A right are not welcome in California - but citizens of another country who are here because they broke our laws are welcomed and given our tax dollars.

I am starting to wonder if I should go to that "Alice in Wonderland" movie so that I can see a depiction of something more normal than is California?

Maestro Pistolero
03-23-2010, 12:35 PM
I understand that that is the case now, thus the theoretical preface, that bear, and/or reciprocity had already been established.

OleCuss
03-23-2010, 12:58 PM
I understand that that is the case now, thus the theoretical preface, that bear, and/or reciprocity had already been established.

I understand this. However, there is a very good chance that the form of carry will not be established by McDonald and it could vary by state in perpetuity.

Even if you postulate that reciprocity has been established, it does not necessarily follow that each state will allow you to carry whatever is acceptable within your state of residence.

So when you enter California from, say, Nevada you will have to be complying with California state law. So even if there is reciprocity allowing those with a CCW permit to CCW inside California - if the weapon itself is verboten in California you still won't get to carry it into California let alone carry it in California.

Weapons "reciprocity" may never happen even if CCW and LOC do occur. Two separate issues in some regards.

Scratch705
03-23-2010, 1:08 PM
funny how it only applies to guns.

if someone from out of state enter in a vehicle, their vehicle does not have to meet CA laws. (this is for visiting not to be resident) so they don't need to have smog equipment, can have tint all around, no front license plate, etc

Maestro Pistolero
03-24-2010, 8:45 AM
I was hoping Gene, Wildhawker or the other legal-types might offer some expertise on this question.

loather
03-24-2010, 4:30 PM
funny how it only applies to guns.

if someone from out of state enter in a vehicle, their vehicle does not have to meet CA laws. (this is for visiting not to be resident) so they don't need to have smog equipment, can have tint all around, no front license plate, etc

That won't stop the cops from ticketing you for the above offenses. If your car is spewing smoke, has tint above the legal limit, and no front plate, that is still illegal in California.

Now, the chances of you being pulled over for just the front plate are very slim. I own a car without a front plate, registered in California, and have even been stopped by the cops while driving it. I wasn't cited for lack of a front plate. That one is usually an adder offense in the event that you do get pulled over for doing something stupid. I'd bet that in most cases, unless the cop is trying to bust you, that one never gets written down.

slowjonn
03-24-2010, 8:32 PM
That's not entirely true. Iirc, the chippies lost a case not that long ago on that very issue. The case was tossed because the vehicle violation was on an Az car. Courts ruled in favor of defendant cause the violation was legal in Az, even though illegal in Ca.

I would hope/ wish the same principal would apply to guns.
Sorry on my phone and can't dig up the case now.

dustoff31
03-24-2010, 8:46 PM
That's not entirely true. Iirc, the chippies lost a case not that long ago on that very issue. The case was tossed because the vehicle violation was on an Az car. Courts ruled in favor of defendant cause the violation was legal in Az, even though illegal in Ca.

I would hope/ wish the same principal would apply to guns.
Sorry on my phone and can't dig up the case now.


Not sure if it's the one you were referring to but I know of a no front plate case that was tossed. AZ only issues one plate.

slowjonn
03-25-2010, 9:45 AM
That sounds familiar.

macadamizer
03-25-2010, 1:51 PM
That won't stop the cops from ticketing you for the above offenses. If your car is spewing smoke, has tint above the legal limit, and no front plate, that is still illegal in California.

Now, the chances of you being pulled over for just the front plate are very slim. I own a car without a front plate, registered in California, and have even been stopped by the cops while driving it. I wasn't cited for lack of a front plate. That one is usually an adder offense in the event that you do get pulled over for doing something stupid. I'd bet that in most cases, unless the cop is trying to bust you, that one never gets written down.

Another analogy would be semi trucks -- a semi can run three trailers in a lot of states, but can only run two in California. Doesn't matter if triples are legal where the truck is originally from -- California rules apply.

Gray Peterson
03-25-2010, 1:54 PM
For reference:

SEC. 1083. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:

(1) The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.

(2) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.

(3) Congress has previously enacted legislation for national authorization of the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.

(4) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms to individuals, or allow the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes without need for a permit.

(5) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.

(6) Congress finds that the prevention of lawful carrying by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.

(7) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(8) Congress therefore should provide for the interstate carrying of firearms by such individuals in all States that do not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by their own residents.

(b) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:``926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

``(a) 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 who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes;

``(2) a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides otherwise than as described in paragraph (1), may carry a concealed firearm in any State other than the State of residence of the person that--

``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or

``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

``(b) A person carrying a concealed firearm under this section shall--

``(1) in a State that does not prohibit the carrying of a concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes, be entitled to carry such firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern the specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a resident of the State; or

``(2) in a State that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms, be entitled to carry such a firearm subject to the same laws and conditions that govern specific places and manner in which a firearm may be carried by a person issued a permit by the State in which the firearm is carried.

``(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license of or permit issued to a resident of the State.

``(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to--

``(1) effect the permitting process for an individual in the State of residence of the individual; or

``(2) preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.''.

(c) 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.''.


(d) Severability.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

stag1500
03-25-2010, 2:48 PM
Ahh! I knew that sounded familiar. The Thune Amendment that didn't pass because of two Republican Senators.