PDA

View Full Version : If Jerry Brown favors Shall Issue


Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 1:55 PM
If our new Governor favors Shall Issue CCW, could his legislature be likely to pass an AB 357 type bill? Is it possible for a Governor (like JB) to give the Legislature an ultimatum(s) to make an effort for an AB-357 type bill making his desk? Would all of us be willing to let Peruta & Richards go moot for that purpose? Do we have a chance with JB based on his Amicus Curiae (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald?

If this happened, would a repeal be likely to happen if someone like Amiano took over (you never know), and should we let Peruta & Richards continue first because of that, or the equally horrendous (yet unlikely) possibility that something happened to JB, and Newsom takes over?

Erik.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 2:14 PM
We could have Ted Nugent as our governor and we still wouldn't have legislative shall-issue. The legislature here is controlled by the public sector unions who will never, ever, allow CCW reform to pass the legislature. Never. Even our new districts won't help us.

If you want to talk about far-fetched radical scenarios, here are some that I can come up with:


Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet (http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/why-we-need-to-let-states-go-broke/) effort (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/12/07/secret-gop-plan-push-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-and-smash-unions/) underway (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/12/01/would-allowing-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-help-california/) now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, which would pass shall-issue. But that's almost in a different world from our present world.
If someone like the Nuge really were governor, he could obviate the need for CCW reform by using the power of the pardon to give a blanket pardon in cases of PC12031 (etc) when no other conduct is involved and the person has a clean record. Such an approach of using pardon powers to nullify a criminal law would be (AFAIK) nigh (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7974.html) unprecedented, and I can't imagine it happening.
Some people might think that if the state ran out of money it might stop enforcing certain "unimportant" criminal laws like PC12031 (with no other conduct involved). I don't think that's the case. I think that as the state runs out of money they will spend more time enforcing laws that can generate revenue, and PC12031 (against people without criminal records or other conduct) is one of those laws, because such people have the ability to pay the fines. Enforcing laws against real crimes, like robbery etc, doesn't net any fines. So the state running out of money may actually make them spend more time enforcing technical laws rather than fighting crime.

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 2:30 PM
CCWFacts senario #1:

"Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet effort underway now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, ...... "

The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D

Uriah02
01-01-2011, 2:35 PM
What about pushing for CCW via ballot initiative?

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 2:39 PM
What about pushing for CCW via ballot initiative?

I even helped collect signatures one year. Unfortunately we are in the minority on this issue. The masses in California have been brain washed by the media and others. The courts seem to be the only way at this point. At least until the "Melt Down" occurs. :)

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 2:40 PM
CCWFacts senario #1:

The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D

A lot of us are hoping. It could change the future direction of American society. Right now, the Obama vision is a country where everyone is dependent on the government (and the public sector unions) for all the basic needs in life: security, jobs, healthcare, education. California's public sector unions are the most powerful. If this state could be de-unionized, it would change the future course of America.

The GOP is being smart about this. They did not pass a year-long funding bill, meaning that they will control the budget when the new congress comes in. This means that California will not receive the Federal bailout it was relying on to make ends meet. This brings California into the realm of bankruptcy, if voters don't approve a tax increase here. If the GOP can alter the Federal bankruptcy code to allow California to get out of union contracts, it might put a stop to the FDR / Obama agenda... for now.

Let's hope.

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 2:46 PM
.................. If the GOP can alter the Federal bankruptcy code to allow California to get out of union contracts, it might put a stop to the FDR / Obama agenda... for now.

Let's hope.

The "public opinion winds" are blowing hard against the unions. I think a majority of people are beginning to realize the damage they are causing. Once crushed, it would be hard for them to regain power. I see hope for the future.

Mulay El Raisuli
01-01-2011, 2:51 PM
If our new Governor favors Shall Issue CCW, could his legislature be likely to pass an AB 357 type bill? Is it possible for a Governor (like JB) to give the Legislature an ultimatum(s) to make an effort for an AB-357 type bill making his desk? Would all of us be willing to let Peruta & Richards go moot for that purpose? Do we have a chance with JB based on his Amicus Curiae (http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/california_cert_stage.pdf) in McDonald?


I think we'd be a LOT better off getting the issue fully nailed down in the courts so that politicians can't play with it at all.


If this happened, would a repeal be likely to happen if someone like Amiano took over (you never know), and should we let Peruta & Richards continue first because of that, or the equally horrendous (yet unlikely) possibility that something happened to JB, and Newsom takes over?

Erik.


That's such a frightening thought that I wouldn't even have said it. Just in case. :shock:

Maybe daily novenas are in order?


Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet (http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/why-we-need-to-let-states-go-broke/) effort (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/12/07/secret-gop-plan-push-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-and-smash-unions/) underway (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/12/01/would-allowing-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-help-california/) now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, which would pass shall-issue. But that's almost in a different world from our present world.



Is actual bankruptcy necessary? Isn't there an intermediate stage (receivership?) that can be done now? I.E., something that lets a judge re-write the contracts as part of re-structuring?


The Raisuli

LiquidFlorian
01-01-2011, 3:12 PM
The "public opinion winds" are blowing hard against the unions. I think a majority of people are beginning to realize the damage they are causing. Once crushed, it would be hard for them to regain power. I see hope for the future.

Yeah, the snow slowdown in New York is going to help with that. Hopefully those bastards in charge will face criminal charges relating to that baby's death.

CCWFacts senario #1:



The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D

Wouldn't it be better for California to loose its sovereignty and revert back to a Federal Territory?

BillCA
01-01-2011, 3:22 PM
JB could ask the legislature to do it. But it'll be a cold day in Hades before you could get a majority of Dems to vote for it. In fact, I would expect many of them to run to the media with a "Brown sold out to the NRA!" comment. :rolleyes:

Ballot initiatives will fail simply because Californians have endured too many years of anti-gun propganda and associate gun ownership with right-wing politics.

oldsmoboat
01-01-2011, 3:55 PM
If we did go "shall issue", would you expect hand gun prices to change?
Up or down?

safewaysecurity
01-01-2011, 3:59 PM
Lets just get Senator Thune or Coburn to propose National CCW Reciprocity and even allow CCW in states that make it illegal like Illinois and Wisconsin. And also make it so as long as someone has a CCW from any state, they can carry. So we can all get our Florida or Utah Permits and be set.

jidokenju
01-01-2011, 4:02 PM
If we did go "shall issue", would you expect hand gun prices to change?
Up or down?

Barring any other changes, I'd expect the demand for guns (especially ccw friendly smaller guns) to go up and the price to rise. But this will likely come after several after major changes, so who knows?

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 4:03 PM
............................... And also make it so as long as someone has a CCW from any state, they can carry. So we can all get our Florida or Utah Permits and be set.

That would go against "States Rights". A bit far reaching. Kind of like the Obama Care mandate.

As much as I would like to see it, it has many other negative ramifications.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 4:04 PM
What about pushing for CCW via ballot initiative?
Unwise move.

The problem is, when the media and unions band together with the LCAV, Bradys, Police Officers' Association, and the Sheriff's association, it would be defeated.

The defeat could would be used by the antis in support of their opposition to our court proceedings, and in support of further legislative restrictions.

Taking any pro-gun related measure to the ballot is not something that we want to do.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 4:10 PM
Lets just get Senator Thune or Coburn to propose National CCW Reciprocity and even allow CCW in states that make it illegal like Illinois and Wisconsin. And also make it so as long as someone has a CCW from any state, they can carry. So we can all get our Florida or Utah Permits and be set.
This is another one that bothers me.

We need nationwide recip, but before that happens, we need 50-state shall-issue.

With nationwide recip, there is no longer a need for non-resident permits.
Likewise, if nationwide recip is forced down the throats of the "discretionary issue" and "no issue" states, they could quite easily pass Colorado/SC/Michigan/FL type laws that only accept permits from your state of residence.

Even with nationwide recip, a Florida permit will still be no good to a Californian in Colorado/SC/Michigan, or California. It would be no different than it is today. It is not possible for a Californian to legally conceal in Colorado, as Colorado does not accept a California permit, and they do not issue non-resident permits. Michigan does not accept the California permit, but they do issue non-res.

Nationwide recip may indeed result in our current non-res permits being useless in states other than the issuing state.

safewaysecurity
01-01-2011, 4:14 PM
That would go against "States Rights". A bit far reaching. Kind of like the Obama Care mandate.

As much as I would like to see it, it has many other negative ramifications.

No... because States DO NOT have the right to infringe on our basic rights. This is not mandating that individuals carry guns. It mandates that the states cannot deny people their basic civil rights and must recognize it. Similar to the Civil Rights Act. I agree with Alan Gura when he said States do not have a right to infringe on our basic liberties and that the 14th amendment help bring that about.

JimWest
01-01-2011, 4:36 PM
... Kind of like the Obama Care mandate...


There will be much impetus on many issues evident depending on what happens to this one mandate. How OC is handled will open many avenues to a lot of constitutional matters that pertain to us here.

sholling
01-01-2011, 4:43 PM
That would go against "States Rights". A bit far reaching. Kind of like the Obama Care mandate.

As much as I would like to see it, it has many other negative ramifications.
Actually it's what the 14th Amendment is all about - forcing the states to live within the Bill Of Rights.

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 4:44 PM
...
In fact, I would expect many of them to run to the media with a "Brown sold out to the NRA!" comment. :rolleyes:

They had their chance to say that when he filed the Amicus brief in McDonald (which I link above).
...
Lets just get Senator Thune or Coburn to propose National CCW Reciprocity and even allow CCW in states that make it illegal like Illinois and Wisconsin. And also make it so as long as someone has a CCW from any state, they can carry. So we can all get our Florida or Utah Permits and be set.

This is something I've pushed for. Your idea of the next "Thune Amendment" is one with teeth, but again, I would be afraid of a repeal by a super majority against us.

My ultimate wishlist item when it comes to national reciprocity (NR) is for National CC (National Constitutional Carry or NCC), and that could happen (in TWO WEEKS) if we continue doing as well as we are. :p I realize that BHO wouldn't sign such a bill until hell freezes over, but would it work if it were attached to the next "must sign" bill?

Otherwise, I like the idea of NR or NCC because there are a lot more people traveling than ever before, and for that many people to have to research so many state regulations is becoming more and more arbitrary, and it will become more of a problem in the future. One standard set of regs would be in order IMO across all states. We wouldn't have to worry about whether the NJ/NY Port Authority will arrest us because another airplane skidded off the runway in Wilkes Barre forcing one to land in Newark or JFK with a stripped LUCC in checked luggage, while Vermont might consider the arresting "agents" a criminal for disarming people.

If we are going to have NCC or NR (which I believe will happen), we need national standards of regs to apply across all 50 & the territories.

Erik.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 4:50 PM
If we are going to have NCC or NR (which I believe will happen), we need national standards of regs to apply across all 50 & the territories.
That's easy.

Good Cause = "I would like to carry a concealed weapon"
Good Moral Character = "I am not prohibited from possessing a firearm"

vantec08
01-01-2011, 4:51 PM
CCWFacts senario #1:

"Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet effort underway now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, ...... "

The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D



As much as I would like to agree, it will not happen. Perhaps a form of insolvency will happen, but elections in CA are determined by the major metropolitan areas - inner cities and nearby areas - and they heavily favor the public unions, soak-the-rich, do-it-fer-the-chirrens, and other political frisbies you want to throw in. I guarantee you, they will get theirs. First.

scarville
01-01-2011, 4:57 PM
Didn't state have to expicitly accept reciprocity for driver's licenses? Seems to me that the same principle would apply to CCW reciprcocity.

Crom
01-01-2011, 5:01 PM
The solution for carry is through the courts, not the legislative or executive branches of government. Once carry is ruled as a right, combined with your right to travel, we should be able to carry in all 50 states in some manner or another.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 5:17 PM
As much as I would like to agree, it will not happen. Perhaps a form of insolvency will happen, but elections in CA are determined by the major metropolitan areas - inner cities and nearby areas - and they heavily favor the public unions, soak-the-rich, do-it-fer-the-chirrens, and other political frisbies you want to throw in. I guarantee you, they will get theirs. First.
If the unions lack the funding for their media activities, this attitude will begin to fall.

These people believe what they believe because it is the only thing they hear.
DOWN WITH WAL MART IN INGLEWOOD!!!! Oh wait, did you just say that Wal Mart just put 200 new jobs to Hawthorne?!?!

Jack L
01-01-2011, 5:26 PM
As much as I would like to agree, it will not happen. Perhaps a form of insolvency will happen, but elections in CA are determined by the major metropolitan areas - inner cities and nearby areas - and they heavily favor the public unions, soak-the-rich, do-it-fer-the-chirrens, and other political frisbies you want to throw in. I guarantee you, they will get theirs. First.


I agree. Jerry or CA politicos will not mess with Highway Patrol (his personal bodyguards) or LE under CalPERS or fire cops which would probably include firefighters. Governors freak out cutting these areas because when SHTF like huge fires or catastrophes, he/she and theirs get a lot of heat and blame for shortages of any of the above. But I suppose anything is possible but I wouldn't hold my breath. Also, those listed above have the guns..........:eek:

dustoff31
01-01-2011, 5:30 PM
If our new Governor favors Shall Issue CCW, could his legislature be likely to pass an AB 357 type bill?

I'm curious. Is this a what if question or do you have some reason to believe that Brown does indeed favor shall issue?

In reading over his brief, I get the impression that he believes you have a right to own a gun in your home. And that's about it.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 5:46 PM
Is actual bankruptcy necessary? Isn't there an intermediate stage (receivership?) that can be done now? I.E., something that lets a judge re-write the contracts as part of re-structuring?

I don't know. I'm not a lawyer, and in any case, this is an unprecedented situation. It's a simple fact that a state can become insolvent (ours was last year for a brief period of time). What happens if that happens as an ongoing thing, rather than a short-term situation? I know that vendors would stop doing work for the state. I know that creditors (vendors, employees, etc) would start filing lawsuits. I know that creditors don't have the power to seize state assets (the capitol building, etc) because the state has sovereign immunity from that. But "where do we go from here", I have no idea. I assume that giving the state access to bankruptcy proceedings might give a more powerful tool to rework various obligations. In particular, the state needs to cut its pension and healthcare obligations. Within a decade we're going to be in a situation where the bulk of our tax dollars go to paying retirees, so we end up with little or no state services while paying high taxes.

Lets just get Senator Thune or Coburn to propose National CCW Reciprocity

It will happen, it will pass. It will be attached as an amendment to a must-pass bill. It will probably pass by voice vote.

As much as I would like to agree, it will not happen. Perhaps a form of insolvency will happen, but elections in CA are determined by the major metropolitan areas - inner cities and nearby areas - and they heavily favor the public unions, soak-the-rich, do-it-fer-the-chirrens, and other political frisbies you want to throw in. I guarantee you, they will get theirs. First.

We'll see. I agree, the unions have a tremendous political power. But... Right now a lot of Californians are out of work and are desperate to get anything they can find. When enough people with college degrees are working in $15 an hour no-benefits / no-security jobs, and they hear about bus drivers making $100k per year and cops with millions of dollars in pension commitments (defined-benefit pensions), some of those urban liberals might feel a bit more conservative than before. If you read any articles on the state budget situation, say on latimes.com or sfgate.com, and you look at the comments, they are full of angry anti-union tirades. Both the LA Times and SFGate have been running embarrassing anti-union stories regularly for the past few years. We'll see.

Drivedabizness
01-01-2011, 5:48 PM
CCWFacts senario #1:

"Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet effort underway now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, ...... "

The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D

Except, with all due respect, you don't really get it. Even if the State could declare bankruptcy they will never exit their union contracts. Ever. Under any scenario except possibly a "this is a criminal conspiracy to steal from us" in a civil rights action-type scenario. Look at the City of Vallejo - they declared bankruptcy and our Legislature immediately started looking at action to prevent anyone else from freeing themselves of our public sector contracts.

BTW - I've been in public sector technology contracting for over 20 years. Just about every contract contains language that essentially nullifies the contract if the Legislature fails to appropriate funds for it. IMO our public sector contracts deserve no higher level of protection!

Window_Seat
01-01-2011, 5:57 PM
I'm curious. Is this a what if question or do you have some reason to believe that Brown does indeed favor shall issue?

In reading over his brief, I get the impression that he believes you have a right to own a gun in your home. And that's about it.
I do indeed believes he favors SI, but I could be totally wrong. I honestly doubt that he would have indicated that in his brief considering what he could have been up against while running for Governor.

I could see the anti-Brown adds put up by MW: "Jerry Brown wants criminals to be able to parade around the streets with loaded guns"

I'm almost certain that he knows that it's going to soon be impossible for the State to defend a defacto ban on lawful loaded carry outside the home while trying to define "sensitive places", especially considering other states like IA (today) and WI (in the near future) are going SI, no?

Erik.

Jack L
01-01-2011, 5:58 PM
We saw what happened with the student protest concerning tuition increases, that LEO had to draw his pistol. Just wait for entitlements to dozens of programs and services to children, disabled, non citizens, those considered at the low end of the income scale and on and on to be cut. The natives get angry. There's a lot more to all this than just whacking pension systems for a fix it solution. There would be a major ripple effect in my estimation if the State goes belly up.

infamous209
01-01-2011, 6:01 PM
Three reasons I believe America is headed in the wrong direction
1 Brainwashing- too many people believe all they hear out of a politician.
2 We have slowly lost our rights, and never put our government in check over it.
3 Too many bills have been overturned that we as Americans put in place. Once again we havent put our government in check.

It will take a lot of work and sticking together to turn this country around from the utter doom we are headed to

Jack L
01-01-2011, 6:03 PM
I do indeed believes he favors SI, but I could be totally wrong. I honestly doubt that he would have indicated that in his brief considering what he could have been up against while running for Governor.

I could see the anti-Brown adds put up by MW: "Jerry Brown wants criminals to be able to parade around the streets with loaded guns"

I'm almost certain that he knows that it's going to soon be impossible for the State to defend a defacto ban on lawful loaded carry outside the home while trying to define "sensitive places", especially considering other states like IA (today) and WI (in the near future) are going SI, no?

Erik.


I wonder what the sheriff's excuses could be for not issuing CCW's when in many areas of this state there is no cell service and no LE for large amounts of time (including way out here on my ranch). Seems that scenario alone would justify a trained otherwise qualified person to be able carry?

dustoff31
01-01-2011, 6:06 PM
I'm almost certain that he knows that it's going to soon be impossible for the State to defend a defacto ban on lawful loaded carry outside the home while trying to define "sensitive places", especially considering other states like IA (today) and WI (in the near future) are going SI, no?

Erik.

Fair enough. Although I can't entirely agree. Having lived in CA during his previous terms as Gov., I wouldn't call him an anti per se, but I don't look for him to start trying to dismantle anything now in place.

I will however refer back to his brief, where he said essentially, "the SCOTUS told us what states cannot do in regard to firearms restrictions, now we need them to tell us what we can do.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 6:15 PM
I wonder what the sheriff's excuses could be for not issuing CCW's when in many areas of this state there is no cell service and no LE for large amounts of time (including way out here on my ranch). Seems that scenario alone would justify a trained otherwise qualified person to be able carry?

Their main excuses are:


"We want to keep guns off the streets"
Their favorite: "We don't want the liability"


These are both lies. The liability concern in particular is uttered very frequently by non-issuing sheriffs and chiefs, and it's a knowing, intentional, lie.

The truth is, CCW issuance is a factor in sheriffs' and chiefs' power base, and they put concerns over personal power far above the safety of those they are supposed to "serve and protect".

We saw what happened with the student protest concerning tuition increases, that LEO had to draw his pistol. Just wait for entitlements to dozens of programs and services to children, disabled, non citizens, those considered at the low end of the income scale and on and on to be cut. The natives get angry. There's a lot more to all this than just whacking pension systems for a fix it solution. There would be a major ripple effect in my estimation if the State goes belly up.

It could get very ugly if there are cuts to the various benefits here. I can't find references for it but apparently the Rodney King riots in 1992 ended when the welfare checks showed up. There's a direct connection there.

SDI
01-01-2011, 6:16 PM
Michigan does not accept the California permit, but they do issue non-res.

Small point, but Michigan does recognise a CA permit.

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 6:26 PM
Except, with all due respect, you don't really get it. Even if the State could declare bankruptcy they will never exit their union contracts. Ever.

The State isn't going to have much of a choice. It can't sustain the present path and it pension obligations (along with entitlements) is the primary cause. The problem will continue until Sacramento (or the voters) fixes it. Spending must be drastically reduced. Those that actually pay taxes are moving out of the state in large groups. Revenue will be going down. Raise taxes, and it will get worse (due to a slower economy causing revenue to drop even more). Those butt heads in Sacramento are in a catch 22. They are going to lose. When they do, we will win.

CCWFacts
01-01-2011, 6:37 PM
Except, with all due respect, you don't really get it. Even if the State could declare bankruptcy they will never exit their union contracts. Ever.

I hear what you're saying there. The unions here are tremendously powerful. They have lots of members with lots of money and influence.

But things may be changing. So many people are out of work right now.

And even the liberal news media have been running lots of articles recently about how unions are exploiting the states. Check this recent article about California (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/business/02showdown.html?_r=1&src=busln&pagewanted=all) in the NY Times:

Across the nation, a rising irritation with public employee unions is palpable, as a wounded economy has blown gaping holes in state, city and town budgets, and revealed that some public pension funds dangle perilously close to bankruptcy. In California, New York, Michigan and New Jersey, states where public unions wield much power and the culture historically tends to be pro-labor, even longtime liberal political leaders have demanded concessions — wage freezes, benefit cuts and tougher work rules.

That's right! Consider me irritated!

The article explains the dynamic very clearly:

Fred Siegel, a historian at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute, has written of the “New Tammany Hall (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/031citja.asp?nopager=1),” which he describes as the incestuous alliance between public officials and labor.

“Public unions have had no natural adversary; they give politicians political support and get good contracts back,” Mr. Siegel said. “It’s uniquely dysfunctional.”

That is precisely what has happened. You need two adverse sides for a negotiation to reach a reasonable middle point. Unfortunately in California, the unions have been negotiating against their friends, resulting in the situation we are in now.

vantec08
01-01-2011, 6:45 PM
The State isn't going to have much of a choice. It can't sustain the present path and it pension obligations (along with entitlements) is the primary cause. The problem will continue until Sacramento (or the voters) fixes it. Spending must be drastically reduced. Those that actually pay taxes are moving out of the state in large groups. Revenue will be going down. Raise taxes, and it will get worse (due to a slower economy causing revenue to drop even more). Those butt heads in Sacramento are in a catch 22. They are going to lose. When they do, we will win.



Maybe. The present crop of political "progressives" have said clearly and repeatedly that they want to "rebuild America." However, guess what the first step in "rebuilding" is? it would be demolition.

Dirtbozz
01-01-2011, 6:45 PM
................ Unfortunately in California, the unions have been negotiating against their friends, resulting in the situation we are in now.

There is a strong possibility that "their friends" will abandon them and head for higher ground to save their own skins. :D

There is a wave coming across the Nation. Nov. 2nd was just the beginning.

GuyW
01-01-2011, 6:46 PM
If Jerry Brown favors Shall Issue......















....then I'm the freakin' Easter Bunny....
.

Gray Peterson
01-01-2011, 6:48 PM
There is no political solution to get "shall-issue" carry in California from the Legislature. The only solutions are:

1) Holding the sheriff's very strictly accountable to state law on the issuance of licenses via state litigations to where if they delay issuance of licenses by even one day beyond statutory maximum, they will get hit with a writ of mandate in state court.


2) Richards v. Prieto to narrow the good cause and good moral character provisions to almost nothing in federal court.

Do these two things, and we won't need the legislature. I don't like the idea of Kevin DeLeon writing a shall-issue law. Do you?

Sunday
01-01-2011, 6:53 PM
People in Calif. are pretty dumb and asking them for a tax raise usually means higher taxes for all. Bankrupcy may be good.

N6ATF
01-01-2011, 6:59 PM
Not to threadjack further, but it would be funny if we had a reverse free state project where all the taxpayers in CA developed tract housing "refugee camps" in undeveloped areas of other states, moved there, and drained the coffers to nothing here, then came back once the unions were busted, the civil rights-violating government had gone the way of Heaven's Gate, and the cost of living dropped down to comparatively nothing.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 7:56 PM
Small point, but Michigan does recognise a CA permit.
Oops...

I was thinking Florida non-res permit. Michigan accepts Florida from Florida residents, but does not accept any non-resident permit from any state.

Blackhawk556
01-01-2011, 8:13 PM
National reciprocity would be great I can only dream :-)

tabrisnet
01-01-2011, 9:52 PM
Michigan does not accept the California permit, but they do issue non-res.

This is news to me.

I grew up in Michigan and go back to my folks about 2x a year. I had looked it up (http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/reciprocity.php among others) and from what I can tell a) MI will take a CA permit b) MI doesn't offer non-resident permits.

If my sources are wrong, kindly direct me to the relevant sources.

Cokebottle
01-01-2011, 10:11 PM
This is news to me.

I grew up in Michigan and go back to my folks about 2x a year. I had looked it up (http://apps.carryconcealed.net/legal/reciprocity.php among others) and from what I can tell a) MI will take a CA permit b) MI doesn't offer non-resident permits.

If my sources are wrong, kindly direct me to the relevant sources.
As mentioned above, I was incorrect on that.
They do accept the California permit.
It's non-resident permits that they do not accept.
If a Californian has a Utah, AZ, or Florida permit, it is not valid in Michigan, even though Michigan accepts all three. Michigan only accepts permits from the carrier's state of residence.
Like Colorado, Michigan does not issue non-resident permits, so a California resident without a California permit is SOL.

And that goes back to my original point.

Even if we get 50 state reciprocity, that doesn't mean that holding a Utah non-rez will allow you to carry in all 50 states. I would expect the current non-issue or "discretionary issue" states to only accept permits from the carrier's state of residence.

50 state recip is needed, but we need 50 state shall-issue first.
We also need to get Vermont to move to AZ/AK style issue. AZ and AK do not require a permit to carry, but they issue for reasons of reciprocity. Currently, other than non-resident permits, Vermont residents cannot legally carry anywhere other than AK/AZ, and even with non-rez permits, they are in the same boat as Californians for the handful of states that only accept permits from the carrier's state of residence.

And even in AK/AZ, a CCW is needed to bypass the Federal GFSZ, which states that a person is exempt if they possess a CCW from that state. A Florida non-rez only allows a Californian to carry within a Federal GFSZ when in Florida, and for an Arizonian or Alaskan, a CCW is needed within the GFSZ even within their own state. Vermont residents have no option.

gazzavc
01-01-2011, 10:49 PM
We could have Ted Nugent as our governor and we still wouldn't have legislative shall-issue. The legislature here is controlled by the public sector unions who will never, ever, allow CCW reform to pass the legislature. Never. Even our new districts won't help us.

If you want to talk about far-fetched radical scenarios, here are some that I can come up with:


Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet (http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/why-we-need-to-let-states-go-broke/) effort (http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2010/12/07/secret-gop-plan-push-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-and-smash-unions/) underway (http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/12/01/would-allowing-states-to-declare-bankruptcy-help-california/) now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, which would pass shall-issue. But that's almost in a different world from our present world.
If someone like the Nuge really were governor, he could obviate the need for CCW reform by using the power of the pardon to give a blanket pardon in cases of PC12031 (etc) when no other conduct is involved and the person has a clean record. Such an approach of using pardon powers to nullify a criminal law would be (AFAIK) nigh (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7974.html) unprecedented, and I can't imagine it happening.
Some people might think that if the state ran out of money it might stop enforcing certain "unimportant" criminal laws like PC12031 (with no other conduct involved). I don't think that's the case. I think that as the state runs out of money they will spend more time enforcing laws that can generate revenue, and PC12031 (against people without criminal records or other conduct) is one of those laws, because such people have the ability to pay the fines. Enforcing laws against real crimes, like robbery etc, doesn't net any fines. So the state running out of money may actually make them spend more time enforcing technical laws rather than fighting crime.


Those are the best 3 fairy stories I ever heard.

Cheers me right up !!

LOL

Kid Stanislaus
01-01-2011, 11:50 PM
CCWFACTS wrote: "Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet effort underway now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, which would pass shall-issue. But that's almost in a different world from our present world."

Get real. JB is NOT going to crush the unions! They are the mother's milk of his political monetary needs.

Kid Stanislaus
01-01-2011, 11:56 PM
Lets just get Senator Thune or Coburn to propose National CCW Reciprocity and even allow CCW in states that make it illegal like Illinois and Wisconsin. And also make it so as long as someone has a CCW from any state, they can carry. So we can all get our Florida or Utah Permits and be set.

I DO NOT WANT the federal government in charge of CCW. Can you imagine the nightmare that would let loose?

kln5
01-02-2011, 12:12 AM
Raising taxes won't help this state unless they raise them on the people that don't pay any taxes now.

N6ATF
01-02-2011, 12:52 AM
Homeless people? Yeah they should have to pay taxes on the donated food and drinks they're handed at intersections!

SanPedroShooter
01-02-2011, 4:38 AM
There is a strong possibility that "their friends" will abandon them and head for higher ground to save their own skins. :D

There is a wave coming across the Nation. Nov. 2nd was just the beginning.

I think the wave you're talking about crashed on California's "eastern shore" ie. the arizona border. When just about the whole country took a step back to the middle, CA took a step to the left.... again.
Does the phrase, "DEMS SWEEP CA ELECTION!" ring any bells? I have refrained from critisizing the electorate en mass, but the cards are on the table.... Read em' an weep.

Wrangler John
01-02-2011, 5:05 AM
Sorry, but California has a lot more important (higher priority) problems than CCW permits. The unions aren't going away, they elect the people they want to serve at all levels of government. You did read about the last election? Between the unions, Hispanics, medical marijuana growers, welfare culture and Democrats not a single Republican holds statewide office. Having been a union member for three decades and serving on negotiating committees and written may successful proposals I can state that what the unions do best is gain salary and benefits for their members, and lobby legislatures. Right now one union is holding out for a reduction in management benefits in San Mateo County, they want managers to receive the same health care and retirement benefits as rank and file - something I agree with. During the last contract the unions agreed to no salary increases to protect jobs and keep salaries down during the recession.

The real danger in Brown is that he may attack Proposition 13, which would be a disaster for all Californians, especially renters and senior citizens - forcing another round of exodus from the state. Higher commercial property taxes would be passed along to consumers, raising the cost of goods and services. When we look at corporate taxes, inventory taxes, the accumulative cost of environmental regulations, rising fuel and energy costs, and all the rest, we find California to be the whale that beached itself on an economic sandbar. We are now awaiting death by dehydration.

Shall issue CCW is a non-starter in California, take it back to the barn and put on the leg wraps - it's not going anywhere. Sorry!

Dirtbozz
01-02-2011, 6:44 AM
I think the wave you're talking about crashed on California's "eastern shore" ie. the arizona border. When just about the whole country took a step back to the middle, CA took a step to the left.... again.
Does the phrase, "DEMS SWEEP CA ELECTION!" ring any bells? I have refrained from critisizing the electorate en mass, but the cards are on the table.... Read em' an weep.

"DEMS SWEAP CA ELECTION" and assure the financial future of CA is doomed. The wave may have crashed for now, but after the "Great CA Financial Melt Down" things will look a bit different. :D

Jack L
01-02-2011, 7:01 AM
1. I was born in CA in 1948. I can't friggin recognize the place any longer. When my wife retires in two years, we are out of here.

2. AZ does issue permits and with those you do get more latitude than if you do not have a permit in that state. There are a number of added places/areas you can carry in AZ if you do have a AZ permit.

3. It's like a dream to cross an imaginary line (state border) and be in a complete different environment regarding CCW's. Those of you that have been to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office know how friendly they are when you process your paperwork for your CCW. Where I live, when I went to the local city police station to get finger printed and the woman behind the glass asked what I needed them for, after I said it's for a CCW license, she got a horrified look on her face like I was a mutant who needs to be taken out. So many brainwashed sheeple in CA.

4. Most of the unions agreed to concessions with Arnold about 6 - 8 months ago. Even the Highway Patrol which is the first time I've seen them ever do that that I am aware of. Most of these negotiations were not publicized when they took place. Those union members are paying higher contributions now as are the employers and new highers get less in comparison to the old timers. They also gave up a few holidays a year or so ago. The local city cops just did the same last week. But when it comes time to cut entitlements for the dozens of programs out there, God only knows what the environment will be like regarding the infrastructure, safety, education, health care and on and on.

I guess what I see is a restructure of the State of CA. That will be one long contentious process that will not be completed any time soon the way CA works it's politics. In the meantime I hope the litigation against the sheriff's are successful so I can at least carry while CA tries to fix our financial and political issues. But wait! It's not just CA but almost every state has overspent for decades. And our Federal Government has overspent unbelievable amounts of imaginary money.

Good luck to Jerry Brown. It will be like trying to turn an ocean liner around like a U turn.

Happy New Year!

Jack L
01-02-2011, 7:09 AM
"DEMS SWEAP CA ELECTION" and assure the financial future of CA is doomed. The wave may have crashed for now, but after the "Great CA Financial Melt Down" things will look a bit different. :D


Add in the majority of the States and our Federal Government to the meltdown scenario. Everyone was playing the game of Voodoo Economics with no clue what would happen in the long term. I think we all see that the piper has shown up and wants to get paid here real soon. Humpty Dumpty has taken a header and Chicken Little has hit the ground with a splat.

NotEnufGarage
01-02-2011, 7:13 AM
1. I was born in CA in 1948. I can't friggin recognize the place any longer. When my wife retires in two years, we are out of here.

2. AZ does issue permits and with those you do get more latitude than if you do not have a permit in that state. There are a number of added places/areas you can carry in AZ if you do have a AZ permit.

3. It's like a dream to cross an imaginary line (state border) and be in a complete different environment regarding CCW's. Those of you that have been to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office know how friendly they are when you process your paperwork for your CCW. Where I live, when I went to the local city police station to get finger printed and the woman behind the glass asked what I needed them for, after I said it's for a CCW license, she got a horrified look on her face like I was a mutant who needs to be taken out. So many brainwashed sheeple in CA.

4. Most of the unions agreed to concessions with Arnold about 6 - 8 months ago. Even the Highway Patrol which is the first time I've seen them ever do that that I am aware of. Most of these negotiations were not publicized when they took place. Those union members are paying higher contributions now as are the employers and new highers get less in comparison to the old timers. They also gave up a few holidays a year or so ago. The local city cops just did the same last week. But when it comes time to cut entitlements for the dozens of programs out there, God only knows what the environment will be like regarding the infrastructure, safety, education, health care and on and on.

I guess what I see is a restructure of the State of CA. That will be one long contentious process that will not be completed any time soon the way CA works it's politics. In the meantime I hope the litigation against the sheriff's are successful so I can at least carry while CA tries to fix our financial and political issues. But wait! It's not just CA but almost every state that has overspent for decades. And our Federal Government has overspent unbelievable amounts of imaginary money.

Good luck to Jerry Brown. It will be like trying to turn an ocean liner around like a U turn.

Happy New Year!

I've been here since 1971 and I know what you mean.

The first change HAS TO BE a ballot inititiative for a constitutional amendment to completely ban all entiltlements and state benefits for ILLEGAL ALIENS and possibly even new legal immigrants and new state residents (say for 5 years) with a partner amendment to force state and local governments to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws. We need to stop being the land of milk and honey to anyone who wants to come here just to get a check.

cineski
01-02-2011, 7:38 AM
You're wrong. This is already the case with driver's licenses. If our government actually listened to the US Constitution it would be nation-wide constitutional carry regardless of what states like CA, NY, IL or MA said.

That would go against "States Rights". A bit far reaching. Kind of like the Obama Care mandate.

As much as I would like to see it, it has many other negative ramifications.

Dirtbozz
01-02-2011, 8:03 AM
You're wrong. This is already the case with driver's licenses. If our government actually listened to the US Constitution it would be nation-wide constitutional carry regardless of what states like CA, NY, IL or MA said.

Make your case to those "States Rights" advocates coming into the new Congress in DC. They will not vote for it. Its time to slap the Federal Government back into its place. Back to the Constitution as written. Expanding their involvement in our lives will help no one (except those in DC seeking more power over us). In no way do I want the Feds involved in CCW. They will screw that up just like they have everting else. :mad:

cdtx2001
01-02-2011, 8:08 AM
I'm sorry, but both of you make waaaaayyyy too much sense and must now be banished from the state. But since I agree, I'll be banished from the state too. Got any extra room in the UHaul?



1. I was born in CA in 1948. I can't friggin recognize the place any longer. When my wife retires in two years, we are out of here.

2. AZ does issue permits and with those you do get more latitude than if you do not have a permit in that state. There are a number of added places/areas you can carry in AZ if you do have a AZ permit.

3. It's like a dream to cross an imaginary line (state border) and be in a complete different environment regarding CCW's. Those of you that have been to the Washoe County Sheriff's Office know how friendly they are when you process your paperwork for your CCW. Where I live, when I went to the local city police station to get finger printed and the woman behind the glass asked what I needed them for, after I said it's for a CCW license, she got a horrified look on her face like I was a mutant who needs to be taken out. So many brainwashed sheeple in CA.

4. Most of the unions agreed to concessions with Arnold about 6 - 8 months ago. Even the Highway Patrol which is the first time I've seen them ever do that that I am aware of. Most of these negotiations were not publicized when they took place. Those union members are paying higher contributions now as are the employers and new highers get less in comparison to the old timers. They also gave up a few holidays a year or so ago. The local city cops just did the same last week. But when it comes time to cut entitlements for the dozens of programs out there, God only knows what the environment will be like regarding the infrastructure, safety, education, health care and on and on.

I guess what I see is a restructure of the State of CA. That will be one long contentious process that will not be completed any time soon the way CA works it's politics. In the meantime I hope the litigation against the sheriff's are successful so I can at least carry while CA tries to fix our financial and political issues. But wait! It's not just CA but almost every state has overspent for decades. And our Federal Government has overspent unbelievable amounts of imaginary money.

Good luck to Jerry Brown. It will be like trying to turn an ocean liner around like a U turn.

Happy New Year!


I've been here since 1971 and I know what you mean.

The first change HAS TO BE a ballot inititiative for a constitutional amendment to completely ban all entiltlements and state benefits for ILLEGAL ALIENS and possibly even new legal immigrants and new state residents (say for 5 years) with a partner amendment to force state and local governments to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws. We need to stop being the land of milk and honey to anyone who wants to come here just to get a check.

Midian
01-02-2011, 10:34 AM
I think we will be dealing with the fallout of global dollar devaluation way before the California Mommystate lets us carry our boomsticks like trusted responsible grownups.

If the complete financial meltdown occurs--and it's very possible that it will if the dollar is removed fully as the world reserve currency--then I'd imagine the maelstrom that will follow will prompt a lot of people to carry concealed anyway, despite any sort of permitting.

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 10:34 AM
I've been here since 1971 and I know what you mean.

The first change HAS TO BE a ballot inititiative for a constitutional amendment to completely ban all entiltlements and state benefits for ILLEGAL ALIENS and possibly even new legal immigrants and new state residents (say for 5 years) with a partner amendment to force state and local governments to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws. We need to stop being the land of milk and honey to anyone who wants to come here just to get a check.

I'm sorry, but both of you make waaaaayyyy too much sense and must now be banished from the state. But since I agree, I'll be banished from the state too. Got any extra room in the UHaul?

Let's not all just give up (yet), we have come a long way, and that is why all these questions and plans are underway. If we don't EVER get the Legislature to act on CCW (as Gray suggested, and is EXTREMELY likely to happen that way), our lawsuit actions will bind all Sheriffs to issue with "Good Cause" being defined as "Protection of self and/or family", and they won't be able to make long lists of "restrictions" in a book the size of an unabridged Websters Dictionary. Then Sheriff John McGinness began removing the school zone restriction on CCW licenses just before the Sykes case settled, which is now Richards v. Prieto (below in my sig line).

I can understand the urge to get the £µ©|< out, and even I'd like to. My @$$ is moving to OR or WA real soon, but I'm waiting at least until 90% of this state goes green because paying state, sales & property tax that is all equally as horrendously & prohibitively expensive won't help me to retire comfortably.

If you're a person who wears a name tag with no college (my fault), you're headed down an uphill battle unless you're in a union with a good pension or a government worker with a good CALPERS account, but even with that, look at what happened to NUMMI, and those guys had it good, but working with them for 4 years, (as an employee of a subcontractor to the plant operations), some of the crap, shenanigans, etc. from many of the "workers" who knew they could thumb their noses because they wouldn't get fired.

Some of them got away with murder (nearly), and crap that would have had them thrown out in their next reincarnated lives if they weren't in a union as strong as the UAW, and that's part of why so many of us want the unions to go bust... $100.00/hour in some cases works for only the person getting that much for only so long, especially when they shouldn't have been getting any more than $30.00/hour MAX for that time. Sorry, and no offense to those here in that category, especially to those who have good work ethic, as they give you a bad image.

The NY Sanitation worker BS thing that killed a baby could be the start of the end of it all. As they say, all "good" things have to come to an end.

Erik.

Barkoff
01-02-2011, 10:48 AM
CCWFacts senario #1:

"Congress passes a law allowing states to declare bankruptcy. There is a quiet effort underway now to do this. JB has made it clear that he intends to ask the voters for a tax raise with a special ballot prop. If that prop fails, and Congress allows states to declare bankruptcy, California could declare bankruptcy and exit all of its union contracts. That would crush the cash flow, and therefore political power, of our public sector unions. That, combined with redistricting, could eventually lead to a much more conservative state government, ...... "

The "Melt Down" I am hoping for. :D

Problem is, in the face of said meltdown, we had a democrat sweep in NOV. I had waited until things had got so bad, Californians would see the error of their thinking, now I don't believe they are capable of doing so. Look for more taxation friend.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2011, 11:10 AM
I DO NOT WANT the federal government in charge of CCW. Can you imagine the nightmare that would let loose?

Article 4's full faith and credit clause and 14th amendment's section 5 gives Congress the authority to make states recognize records, and section 5 gives the authority to congress to enforce our civil rights.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2011, 11:14 AM
I've been here since 1971 and I know what you mean.

The first change HAS TO BE a ballot inititiative for a constitutional amendment to completely ban all entiltlements and state benefits for ILLEGAL ALIENS and possibly even new legal immigrants and new state residents (say for 5 years) with a partner amendment to force state and local governments to comply with and enforce Federal immigration laws. We need to stop being the land of milk and honey to anyone who wants to come here just to get a check.

Tried, but failed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe). New US citizens who arrive in California must be treated the same as long time residents.

I know about Saenz because it's one of the underpinnings of my case against Colorado....

Wrangler John
01-02-2011, 11:26 AM
One solution would be to divide California into Northern and Southern California with different demographics, problems and legislatures. Maybe divide it into Western and Eastern California - kinda like two large Gaza Strips in eternal conflict. At least the U Haul rental would be less. Which has as much chance as me finding a quarter under my pillow for the tooth I lost. Some problems will not find a solution in our lifetimes, but may become grist for failure analysis scenarios in the future.

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 11:36 AM
Article 4's full faith and credit clause and 14th amendment's section 5 gives Congress the authority to make states recognize records, and section 5 gives the authority to congress to enforce our civil rights.

Good point,

And this is what makes it possible for CGF to go after Ventura County for the GC Statements, no?

Erik.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2011, 11:37 AM
You're wrong. This is already the case with driver's licenses. If our government actually listened to the US Constitution it would be nation-wide constitutional carry regardless of what states like CA, NY, IL or MA said.

Make your case to those "States Rights" advocates coming into the new Congress in DC. They will not vote for it. Its time to slap the Federal Government back into its place. Back to the Constitution as written. Expanding their involvement in our lives will help no one (except those in DC seeking more power over us). In no way do I want the Feds involved in CCW. They will screw that up just like they have everting else. :mad:

Dirtbozz,

Have you even read the Thune Amendment? It doesn't authorize the US government to be "involved" in CCW licensing at all.

Take a look closely at 18USC926A:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

The statute itself is a "notwithstanding" law, which essentially gives a zone of exclusion to any state or local law which crosses that path in specific circumstances. It essentially assures that folks in New Hampshire will not be committing a state crime by purely transporting their handgun while on the way to Pennsylvania. Since New York cuts off New England from the rest of the country, I'd say there's a pretty damned good reason for involvement, per se.

The Thune Amendment functions on the same level and uses the same language.

Here is the Thune Amendment:

(Purpose: To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, 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)
At the end of subtitle H of title X, add the following:

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.

Certain things are more important than "States Rights". Even the 10th amendment focused crowd understand that the federal government is allowed to under Article 4 to make states recognize each other's carry permits. Not to mention Article of Amendment 14 Section 5 and all...

Btw, Congress fears the NRA more than they do the 10th amendment crowd. Just sayin...

vantec08
01-02-2011, 12:03 PM
[QUOTE=Barkoff;5542038]Problem is, in the face of said meltdown, we had a democrat sweep in NOV. I had waited until things had got so bad, Californians would see the error of their thinking, now I don't believe they are capable of doing so. Look for more taxation friend.[/QUOTE


You bet. The demands on the CA treasury are too heavy and numerous by too many voters, who's Reps. and Senators are willing to see the state sink rather than endure the pain while its manageable. This recent election makes clear CA is incapable of managing its affairs with the "progressives" showing us how to "progress". They couldnt care less about the 2nd amendment.

Dirtbozz
01-02-2011, 12:07 PM
I was referring to someone's post about (what I interpreted to be) National Concealed Carry, not National reciprocity. I see those as two different things. If I did not read it correctly, please pardon me.

If the Thune amendment can legitimately give us our rights here in CA, while staying within the Constitution, I am all for it. I hold a Utah permit and would be happy to use it here in California. But as I read the Thune amendment as posted, it does not do that.

Mike

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 12:10 PM
I was referring to someone's post about (what I interpreted to be) National Concealed Carry, not National reciprocity. I see those as two different things.I would be the guilty one you refer to, and that point is well taken and agreed upon. :thumbsup:

Dirtbozz,

Have you even read the Thune Amendment? It doesn't authorize the US government to be "involved" in CCW licensing at all.

Take a look closely at 18USC926A:

[I]Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
... (rest snipped)

... Certain things are more important than "States Rights". Even the 10th amendment focused crowd understand that the federal government is allowed to under Article 4 to make states recognize each other's carry permits. Not to mention Article of Amendment 14 Section 5 and all...

Btw, Congress fears the NRA more than they do the 10th amendment crowd. Just sayin...

I have said it (in BR mode), and will again, that it's weak. Since CA, WI & IL, and some 7 other states don't issue to "peasants", I want the Thune amendment to at least allow me to carry in my home state with my OR, WA, NV, UT or FL permit.

Since it would really flirt with the line of states' rights, I would be willing to not push for 50 state reciprocity with my OOS permit, but at least let me carry in my home state. For WI & IL, we don't force them to recognize residents with OOS permits (for now).

I despise the idea of an OOSer being able to legally carry when I can't by virtue of the fact that I'm a resident and they aren't.

A resident dog goes ballistic from his back yard (where he's locked out) if another dog visits and is allowed to eat from the resident dog's bowl. A cat is locked out of his home, and a stranger cat finds his/her way into the resident cat's home and uses the cat box. CA would have NO PROBLEM with treating their residents like resident dogs & cats, and keeping it that way. This is one area where we should NOT wait for judges to rule on as far as equal protection because it could make for many problems. That's just how I feel about that part of the issue of 48 state reciprocity. ♪♫Hay · jeal·ou·sy♪♫ Maybe a bad analogy, but you get where I'm going with it.

That would IMMEDIATELY change Ammiano's mind because revenue would now be an issue, and CA would HAVE to compete on a level playing field. WI & IL would also not be far behind, and it would of course moot your case (in a good way) providing that the Thune Amendment isn't repealed by another super majority and a future President who hates the COTUS.

Erik.

CCWFacts
01-02-2011, 12:25 PM
Get real. JB is NOT going to crush the unions! They are the mother's milk of his political monetary needs.

That's why I brought up the goings-on in Congress. California's budget was planned with the (optimistic) idea of billions of dollars in Federal aid. At this point, the only aid Congress might give is a change to the bankruptcy law, but don't expect any dollars. JB's views might have little control over the situation. The unions will be crushed, because, like a bad parasite, they have done too much harm to the host.

Problem is, in the face of said meltdown, we had a democrat sweep in NOV. I had waited until things had got so bad, Californians would see the error of their thinking, now I don't believe they are capable of doing so. Look for more taxation friend.

JB will have a special election with a ballot prop to raise taxes. Whether that will pass is "up in the air". Californians have voted anti-tax on ballot props lately, and special elections get low turnout, and there's a rising anti-union sentiment. On the other hand, the unions are still very powerful.

Tried, but failed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenz_v._Roe). New US citizens who arrive in California must be treated the same as long time residents.

I know about Saenz because it's one of the underpinnings of my case against Colorado....

I was thinking about that. That's also why all the "must live here 1 year to apply for a CCW" policies are invalid. I know states have wanted to do things like impose residence requirements before handing out benefits, so that people couldn't benefit-shop when they need to, and courts have struck that down.

Re: people talking about moving out of the state: PLEASE DON'T! That is exactly what they are trying to achieve, especially with their gun laws, so that the unions can form a new aristocracy, lording over a state of third world-style poverty. Please stay here and help us win!

For those talking about moving to a free state: Can I make a deal with you? There will be a special election early next year, wherein Governor Brown will give us a choice between raising taxes or slashing union payouts. Here's the deal I offer: stay here, vote against and work against the tax raise. If it passes, then move out, sending a letter to Gov. Brown (and perhaps some newspapers or blogs) explain why you moved, and how many jobs and how much tax $$ you are taking with you. If it does not pass, it will be the beginning of the end of union control of this state. It will be the beginning of a return to this state's previous conservative orientation, because unions will have their cash flow cut off, and you can stay and enjoy the feeling of freedom returning.

How's that for a deal?

virulosity
01-02-2011, 1:05 PM
It will happen after the zombies overtake the capitol and eat all of the legislature alive.

Gray Peterson
01-02-2011, 1:07 PM
That would IMMEDIATELY change Ammiano's mind because revenue would now be an issue, and CA would HAVE to compete on a level playing field. WI & IL would also not be far behind, and it would of course moot your case (in a good way) providing that the Thune Amendment isn't repealed by another super majority and a future President who hates the COTUS.

Erik.

The current Thune amendment wouldn't allow you to carry in the state of California.

Wisconsin is about to bounce into constitutional carry status, and I believe some things are going to be happening in Illinois either by Legislature or court decision pretty soon.

As for it passing in order to moot my case, I believe the timeline for passage of such an amendment and stuff into law will make it happen later this year. My case will likely be resolved at the District Court level as of April of this year. We'll be in the 10th Circuit by the time Thune happens.

-Gray

Jack L
01-02-2011, 2:41 PM
Good point,

And this is what makes it possible for CGF to go after Ventura County for the GC Statements, no?

Erik.


I hope you do go after Ventura Co. I live in the county above them. That would make my life easier if Ventura has to accept SD as GC.

Today's article on Jerry Brown by Mercury News

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16990388?nclick_check=1

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 3:00 PM
I hope you do go after Ventura Co. I live in the county above them. That would make my life easier if Ventura has to accept SD as GC.

Today's article on Jerry Brown by Mercury News

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16990388?nclick_check=1

Calguns Foundation v. Ventura County (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/news/152-ccw-initiative.html)

CGF: Announcing Carry Initiative, Ventura County Suit (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=353861)

And the complaint can be viewed here (http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/downloads/documents/Verified.Conformed.Complaint.Venutra-Redacted-2010-10-15.pdf)

There is no wiki page for the Ventura complaint.

I wouldn't mind if someone posted a link to the archive docket page. :D

Erik.

INJUNTOM
01-02-2011, 3:12 PM
may actually make them spend more time enforcing technical laws rather than fighting crime.
[/LIST]

I agree. Isn't this what they've been doing all along? :D

tabrisnet
01-02-2011, 3:18 PM
Good point,

And this is what makes it possible for CGF to go after Ventura County for the GC Statements, no?

Erik.

Non-sequitur.

Full faith and credit has nothing to do with FOIA (or the California equivalent) nor does it have anything to do with the 14th amendment's Equal Protection clause.

Getting the GC statements from a particular county is mostly a public records question. Getting them to accept a given GC made by person2 that they accepted already from person1 is a Equal Protection issue (which is a bit oddly named, but the idea is that the law should apply equally to all [similarly situated] persons).

craneman
01-02-2011, 3:22 PM
For those talking about moving to a free state: Can I make a deal with you? There will be a special election early next year, wherein Governor Brown will give us a choice between raising taxes or slashing union payouts. Here's the deal I offer: stay here, vote against and work against the tax raise. If it passes, then move out, sending a letter to Gov. Brown (and perhaps some newspapers or blogs) explain why you moved, and how many jobs and how much tax $$ you are taking with you. If it does not pass, it will be the beginning of the end of union control of this state. It will be the beginning of a return to this state's previous conservative orientation, because unions will have their cash flow cut off, and you can stay and enjoy the feeling of freedom returning.

How's that for a deal?

Deal.....I sure hope you're right though. Heck, I don't know who I am trying to kid, I can't leave anyway. To much property of mine took a big enough hit equity wise that selling would be retirement suicide. Although staying and paying higher property taxes and higher income taxes, sales taxes, might be retirement suicide also. I still have about 20 yrs to go so I guess I will ride it out to see. Thats if my employer doesn't go belly up, or decide they no longer can use me. We shall see.

Arondos
01-02-2011, 3:22 PM
Where does the recognizing a driver's license from one state in another come from?

I hear people say you can't make it so a license in one state has to be recognized in another yet it seems to me is already being done with driving.

Maybe we just need some states that are shall issue to start refusing to allow Kalifornians to drive in that state unless CA will allow their citizens to carry in CA with an out of CA concealed license.

Librarian
01-02-2011, 3:41 PM
Where does the recognizing a driver's license from one state in another come from?

I hear people say you can't make it so a license in one state has to be recognized in another yet it seems to me is already being done with driving.

Maybe we just need some states that are shall issue to start refusing to allow Kalifornians to drive in that state unless CA will allow their citizens to carry in CA with an out of CA concealed license.
There's an interstate driver license agreement (http://www.aamva.org/KnowledgeCenter/Driver/Compacts/Driver+License+Agreement+%28DLA%29.htm) where the states agree to honor other states' licenses. That is, licenses are recognized based on positive state action, not anything imposed on them.

California implements the compact at VC 15000.
15000. The Driver License Compact is hereby enacted into law and
entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in
the form substantially contained in Article 2 (commencing with
Section 15020), of Chapter 6, Division 6 of this code.

15020. (a) The party states find that:
(1) The safety of their streets and highways is materially
affected by the degree of compliance with state laws and local
ordinances relating to the operation of motor vehicles.
(2) Violation of such a law or ordinance is evidence that the
violator engages in conduct which is likely to endanger the safety of
persons and property.
(3) The continuance in force of a license to drive is predicated
upon compliance with laws and ordinances relating to the operation of
motor vehicles, in whichever jurisdiction the vehicle is operated.
(b) It is the policy of the party states to:
(1) Promote compliance with the laws, ordinances and
administrative rules and regulations relating to the operation of
motor vehicles by their drivers in each of the jurisdictions where
such drivers operate motor vehicles.
(2) Make the reciprocal recognition of licenses to drive and
eligibility therefor more just and equitable by considering the
overall compliance with motor vehicle laws, ordinances and
administrative rules and regulations as a condition precedent to the
continuance or issuance of any license by reason of which the
licensee is authorized or permitted to operate a motor vehicle in any
of the party states.

In large part, it exists to allow connecting vehicle offenses in one state to offenses in another.

Can'thavenuthingood
01-02-2011, 5:01 PM
As soon as the state files a bankruptcy the unions will take it to court and hold everything up in limbo.
Except payroll of course.
And dues.

Vick

microwaveguy
01-02-2011, 5:30 PM
It will happen after the zombies overtake the capitol and eat all of the legislature alive.

Zombies want brains ........I believe that is severally lacking in the Capital :rolleyes:

Mulay El Raisuli
01-04-2011, 8:44 AM
I think we will be dealing with the fallout of global dollar devaluation way before the California Mommystate lets us carry our boomsticks like trusted responsible grownups.

If the complete financial meltdown occurs--and it's very possible that it will if the dollar is removed fully as the world reserve currency--then I'd imagine the maelstrom that will follow will prompt a lot of people to carry concealed anyway, despite any sort of permitting.


That isn't going to happen unless & until there's another 'world currency' to take its place. There was talk of changing it to the Euro, but that talk has died now that Greece, Ireland, Spain (etc., etc., etc) are pulling the Euro down into the toilet.


It could get very ugly if there are cuts to the various benefits here. I can't find references for it but apparently the Rodney King riots in 1992 ended when the welfare checks showed up. There's a direct connection there.


THIS is what worries me. If the welfare checks aren't in the mail, what stops the rioting?


The Raisuli

J.D.Allen
01-04-2011, 11:28 AM
I was referring to someone's post about (what I interpreted to be) National Concealed Carry, not National reciprocity. I see those as two different things. If I did not read it correctly, please pardon me.

If the Thune amendment can legitimately give us our rights here in CA, while staying within the Constitution, I am all for it. I hold a Utah permit and would be happy to use it here in California. But as I read the Thune amendment as posted, it does not do that.

Mike

But it does wonders for me. I work and pay taxes in CA and as such I am forced to come here every day. But my main residence is in AZ and as such I can quite easily obtain an AZ resident permit. This bill, while not perfect by any stretch, would be great for me and thousands of others like me in different areas of the country.

Let's not oppose it because it doesn't accomplish everything we want. It is a good bill.

Dirtbozz
01-04-2011, 11:59 AM
Let's not oppose it because it doesn't accomplish everything we want. It is a good bill.

Perhaps if the partial phrase " ...persons place of Residence..." was eliminated, it would be a better bill. :D

Window_Seat
01-04-2011, 12:13 PM
I think we will be dealing with the fallout of global dollar devaluation way before the California Mommystate lets us carry our boomsticks like trusted responsible grownups.

That isn't going to happen unless & until there's another 'world currency' to take its place. There was talk of changing it to the Euro, but that talk has died now that Greece, Ireland, Spain (etc., etc., etc) are pulling the Euro down into the toilet.

If the complete financial meltdown occurs--and it's very possible that it will if the dollar is removed fully as the world reserve currency--then I'd imagine the maelstrom that will follow will prompt a lot of people to carry concealed anyway, despite any sort of permitting.

THIS is what worries me. If the welfare checks aren't in the mail, what stops the rioting?

The Raisuli

If the media makes a big deal out of it (which they will), there will be rioting. The Mesherle/Grant rioting wouldn't have happened if the media would have just reported the initial shooting incident the one night that it happened, and then moved on to other important crap.

If the news media wants there to be rioting, THEY CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN on demand, and it has happened before. When there is rioting, it's because the news media made it possible with their "lets cause a riot" agenda. Everytime an Officer is injured or worse, or a civilian is injured or killed in rioting, most of the blood of that victim is ON THE HANDS of those in the media who make it happen.

Erik.

J.D.Allen
01-04-2011, 12:30 PM
Perhaps if the partial phrase " ...persons place of Residence..." was eliminated, it would be a better bill. :D

Agreed

tcd511
01-14-2011, 3:16 PM
The cost of living in this state is already so high I don't see how JB hopes or expects people to approve a tax increase. Lol....bring on the meltdow!!!