PDA

View Full Version : Sen. Thune's office: More gun control not likely; Reciprocity Amendment hopes


Window_Seat
01-11-2011, 10:46 AM
Even with the AZ tragedies and the knee jerk reactions as a result, and because both Houses of Congress have more pro2A members, it's not as likely as one might think that there is going to be more gun control coming out of this Congress. That doesn't mean that some lawmaker(s) won't come out of the woodwork and pull an anti-2A shenanigan, but in writing this as a lawmaker speaks on Fox News about adding to the already 20,000 plus gun control laws on the books, I'm optimistic that whatever it is, it won't go too far.

I asked about the Thune Amendment (TA), and the staff member (I already forgot her name, kicking myself) said that it will be re-introduced sometime in March, and will be added to a "must sign bill". There is no "line item veto", so it either gets vetoed in its entirety or signed into law, or doesn't get signed at all, at which time, it becomes law. I'm still not sure whether the amendment to whatever bill is introduced needs a vote.

I asked for the TA to include a provision that allows OOS permits to be valid in their home state which doesn't issue permits on a SI basis, and the staff member said NO to that because they would lose votes, as well as create 10A issues. She said "one step at a time" is part of what the strategy is. I mentioned that the unintended consequence to that (for those who can't get permits in their home state) is that an OOS visitor with a permit from their home state will be able to carry in a state that refuses to issue to their own citizen residents. There will always be unintended consequences to everything, but this one sticks out like sharp metal across a microphoned chalk board in an amphitheater.

She even mentioned Schumer, and how he is not on board with this, but he would be willing to allow a provision to allow truckers to be able to carry. At least that much is comforting to know, but that would obviously create EP issues, as does the Airline Pilots being able to carry. To me, it's obviously not enough.

I asked about the possibility about losing votes on the TA as a result of the tragedy in AZ, and she reminded me of the Holocaust Museum shooting that happened just before the last TA was underway for the vote, and it got as many "yea" votes as it did, which surprised many.

In any event, most (on the pro side) are optimistic that the TA will go through this time, and from the conversation I had with her, I am more optimistic than I was before.

So look for the TA to be restarted sometime in March of this year.

Erik.

SwissFluCase
01-11-2011, 10:56 AM
She even mentioned Schumer, and how he is not on board with this, but he would be willing to allow a provision to allow truckers to be able to carry.

WTH, is Schumer going soft on us? :D

Regards,


SwissFluCase

Lone_Gunman
01-11-2011, 10:58 AM
Good news! Between CGFs efforts on the CCW front and the Thune Amendment even CA residents should be able to carry nation wide.

OleCuss
01-11-2011, 11:09 AM
Window Seat:

Thank you for the update. It is good to hear good news.

M1A Rifleman
01-11-2011, 11:14 AM
My bet is some anti-gun stuff will pass. I predict a mag ban will pass, as this is an easy target and will appear reasonable to most in light of what happened. At best, maybe an agreement to give up mags for carry rights could be done.

motorhead
01-11-2011, 11:17 AM
i'm sure bobby rush will reintroduce the blair holt bill for the umteenth million time. it probably will die again with no co-sponsors.

OleCuss
01-11-2011, 11:19 AM
I don't think the mag ban will pass. What a hornet's nest of opposition that would create - and the Republicans would almost certainly lose in 2012.

Expect legislation to be introduced in both the House and in the Senate and for Reid and Boehner to work to slowly and relatively quietly kill it (lots of parliamentary maneuvers).

And remember that if Giffords recovers sufficiently to return to the House - she might actually vote against such legislation.

Don't count on a magazine ban. It's a bad bet.

Librarian
01-11-2011, 11:34 AM
I mentioned that the unintended consequence to that (for those who can't get permits in their home state) is that an OOS visitor with a permit from their home state will be able to carry in a state that refuses to issue to their own citizen residents.

I believe this is actually a feature - not that in-state people are denied, but that the contrast is a good lever to point out the essential unfairness of the in-state limitations.

Step by step, indeed.

SwissFluCase
01-11-2011, 11:36 AM
I doubt a mag ban will pass as well. The 1st Amendment is probably more at risk than the 2nd.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

nick
01-11-2011, 11:37 AM
I believe this is actually a feature - not that in-state people are denied, but that the contrast is a good lever to point out the essential unfairness of the in-state limitations.

Step by step, indeed.

That was my first thought, but I didn't want to voice it.

PsychGuy274
01-11-2011, 12:04 PM
Thanks for the update...it's always a breath of fresh air to get some good news like this.

CCWFacts
01-11-2011, 12:09 PM
Thanks for the update, Window Seat! My initial reaction to the AZ shooting (after feeling sickened by it, although it still does make me sick) is to wonder if it would derail the TA. I'm glad that it won't.

My impression from the news spin on this situation is that people are viewing it in terms of a mental illness issue and a "why don't they have better security for congressmen" issue. Initially there was some desire to spin this as "of course the Tea Party did it" but now it's obvious to all that the perp is mentally ill, with no coherent agenda of any flavor. It's a lot like after VT. VT didn't spur any serious gun control efforts, but it did make people in VA demand better database integration so that NICS would have blocked the sale. AZ law would have allowed someone to report that perp and subject him to a mental evaluation. Why didn't someone do that? That's what they're wondering now.

It's amazing the perp wasn't shot. In the news reports it's clear that quite a few people (possibly including the judge, RIP), had CCWs. Certainly one of the bystanders who tackled the perp had a CCW.

it will be re-introduced sometime in March, and will be added to a "must sign bill".

That just about coincides with the debt ceiling bill, which is nice because:


The debt ceiling bill is the "mother of all must-pass bills". If it does not pass the government's credit rating will go to junk and the government will shut down all of its operations. Srsly. Everything. Troops would need to pay out of pocket for commercial flights home from Afghanistan.
I assume that Congress would like to pass the debt ceiling bill by voice vote if at all possible. I know that some in Congress will try to make it an on-record vote, but most of the conservatives who will vote for it would prefer it to be off-record. That will line up nicely with allowing liberals to vote off-record for the TA. We'll see if the Tea Party movement has the juice to make this an on-record vote or not.


I asked for the TA to include a provision that allows OOS permits to be valid in their home state which doesn't issue permits on a SI basis, and the staff member said NO to that because they would lose votes, as well as create 10A issues. She said "one step at a time" is part of what the strategy is.

I hear what you're saying there. It would be lovely for me to be able to carry here in Los Angeles using my Utah permit. But really, doing so is a legal hack, and I would prefer that the bill passes the right way. The TA will put so much pressure on the remaining non-issue locations that it will all sort itself out quickly. It will also help in the court cases; why should tourists from Idaho have a right to carry in Los Angeles when I don't have a right to?

I don't think that covering OOS-in-home-state is important.

J.D.Allen
01-11-2011, 12:15 PM
I hear what you're saying there. It would be lovely for me to be able to carry here in Los Angeles using my Utah permit. But really, doing so is a legal hack, and I would prefer that the bill passes the right way. The TA will put so much pressure on the remaining non-issue locations that it will all sort itself out quickly. It will also help in the court cases; why should tourists from Idaho have a right to carry in Los Angeles when I don't have a right to?

I don't think that covering OOS-in-home-state is important.

Wait a minute. Are you sure this pressure will help any in the CA anti counties? I mean, we already have most counties in CA issuing CCW's, meaning that residents of other counties can go to LA, SD, SF etc...carrying while the residents of those counties cannot. What makes us so sure that an inter-state bill would change their minds. I seriously believe that many of these CLEO's will do EVERYTHING they can to keep guns out of the hands of as many law abiding citizens as possible, for as long as they possibly can.

Crom
01-11-2011, 12:41 PM
I hear what you're saying there. It would be lovely for me to be able to carry here in Los Angeles using my Utah permit. But really, doing so is a legal hack, and I would prefer that the bill passes the right way. The TA will put so much pressure on the remaining non-issue locations that it will all sort itself out quickly. It will also help in the court cases; why should tourists from Idaho have a right to carry in Los Angeles when I don't have a right to?

I don't agree. You're suggesting that the Sheriffs are going to voluntarily give up power. There is no incentive for them to do so. They'll just point to the penal code and say "Look it says may issue, not shall issue! Don't like it --go take it up with the legislature!" That's exactly what Sheriff Gore did.

The fact is that California (as a whole) will not change unless there is a right-to-carry legal victory in the federal courts.

Nor-Cal
01-11-2011, 12:43 PM
Its very good to hear that the TA will be introduced in march!

Southwest Chuck
01-11-2011, 12:53 PM
[QUOTE=Crom;5598643] They'll just point to the penal code and say [I]"Look it says shall issue, not may issue!

????

Got that reversed my friend :D

Librarian
01-11-2011, 12:59 PM
Wait a minute. Are you sure this pressure will help any in the CA anti counties? I mean, we already have most counties in CA issuing CCW's, meaning that residents of other counties can go to LA, SD, SF etc...carrying while the residents of those counties cannot. What makes us so sure that an inter-state bill would change their minds. I seriously believe that many of these CLEO's will do EVERYTHING they can to keep guns out of the hands of as many law abiding citizens as possible, for as long as they possibly can.

I don't agree. You're suggesting that the Sheriffs are going to voluntarily give up power. There is no incentive for them to do so. They'll just point to the penal code and say "Look it says shall issue, not may issue! Don't like it --go take it up with the legislature!" That's exactly what Sheriff Gore did.

The fact is that California (as a whole) will not change unless there is a right-to-carry legal victory in the federal courts.

I agree with the last. I don't expect the pressure to be on lower-level state officials, but rather on Federal District Courts, who will be able to apply that pressure further down the chain via favorable (to rights) opinions in cases brought before them.

press1280
01-11-2011, 1:45 PM
The problem with expanding the TA to home states is that everyone will simply go to the easiest, cheapest permit out there and bypass their own state. Whatever state goes lowest will get all the revenue. The NJs and NYs will collapse when the public realizes non-residents can carry there, but not them. Assuming of course, the courts don't knock it down first.
Does the TA need to just pass the Senate, or both the House and Senate? I know last time it needed 60 in the Senate to pass.I'm going to see if my new Senator is going to vote for this(the other is an ANTI through and through). I suggest everyone else write to their Senators and see if they'll support the TA.
I'm also hoping this will include carry in DC. DC does still have a carry law on the books, but with no one to issue it, so it's unclear. (Oh yea, what about Palmer?)

wildhawker
01-11-2011, 2:04 PM
I don't agree. You're suggesting that the Sheriffs are going to voluntarily give up power. There is no incentive for them to do so. They'll just point to the penal code and say "Look it says shall issue, not may issue! Don't like it --go take it up with the legislature!" That's exactly what Sheriff Gore did.

The fact is that California (as a whole) will not change unless there is a right-to-carry legal victory in the federal courts.

I agree with Crom. The handful of out-of-state carriers in a MSA containing 18-20 million people is not even on the map of pressures having an action nexus. Until we have a clear Federal decision we can leverage, the fight is in the trenches. Fix bayonets. (Oops, was that martial terminology I just used?)

monkeshine
01-11-2011, 2:40 PM
If TA passes , CA residents might be able to take permanent residency in other states. It won't be cheap, but for those who have parents in another state, or vacation homes, or is just willing to buy or rent in a SI state can change permanent residences. Homes in Nevada and Arizona can be had pretty inexpensively relative to the COL in California. Maybe a couple of die yards can split the rent on a 2 or 3 bedroom apt.

The above notwithstanding, as the OP mentioned, the TA passing would mean lots of oos visitors exercising a right in our state that we ourselves cannot exercise. That alone might be enough to change the tides, as everyone can see the inherent unfairness in that. It might be enough to cause either the sheriffs to capitulate, or the political dynamic to shift.

At the end of the day this might get sold to the CA legislature as a money and power issue. Currently Sheriffs issue discretionary. The state might consider taking it away from the sheriff discretion and collecting the fees at the state level. Millions of dollars are at stake, maybe tens of millions in new revenues from permit fees and renewals, new revenues which the state badly needs. Of course, we can challenge the constitutionality of charging fees to exercise a right later. "One step at a time" she said, eh?

Maestro Pistolero
01-11-2011, 2:47 PM
My bet is some anti-gun stuff will pass. I predict a mag ban will pass, as this is an easy target and will appear reasonable to most in light of what happened. At best, maybe an agreement to give up mags for carry rights could be done.

Not a chance, IMO.

safewaysecurity
01-11-2011, 3:01 PM
Not a chance, IMO.

agreed

Paladin
01-11-2011, 4:19 PM
I agree with Crom. The handful of out-of-state carriers in a MSA containing 18-20 million people is not even on the map of pressures having an action nexus.I can't wait until thousand upon thousands of residents from Free America start carrying while spending their vacations among the mere 800,000 residents of SF county!

I wonder how many out-of-state vacationers spend time each year in SF: 100,000? 200,000? more??? If only 2% pack while here, and the number is 200,000, that means SF will have 4,000 non-resident CCWers over the course of a year! :43:

NightOwl
01-11-2011, 4:24 PM
While this benefits us, this is still a crappy underhanded way of doing it. I find it hard to root for something that is done in a morally reprehensible manner rather than straightforward, regardless of the fact that the amendment should be able to stand on it's own (as a bill, not needing to be an amendment).

Librarian
01-11-2011, 4:25 PM
I can't wait until thousand upon thousands of residents from Free America start carrying while spending their vacations among the mere 800,000 residents of SF county!

I wonder how many out-of-state vacationers spend time each year in SF: 100,000? 200,000? more??? If only 2% pack while here, and the number is 200,000, that means SF will have 4,000 non-resident CCWers over the course of a year! :43:

http://www.sfcvb.org/research/

2009, about 15 million total visitors who spent just under $8 billion. 125K visitors/day.

ETA: based on where hotel guests are coming from, about 28% are from within California, and another 9% from NYC/DC. Overseas visitor numbers are buried behind a login.

Non-US in SF was 2.37 million per http://tourism.visitcalifornia.com/media/uploads/files/editor/Research/2009%20California%20Data%20Report%20-%20Public%20Version.pdf

So, roughly 7 million SF visitors/year are from inside the US but not California (or DC or New York City, who might be expected to have few CCW holders).

Well, y'asked, sorta.

Patrick-2
01-11-2011, 4:48 PM
Window_Seat: Awesome job and thanks for the research. Good news, indeed.


Now...for the part that will sting us all here: We do not want the Thune Amendment to include OOS carry permits. At all.

If the TA allowed this, CA, MD, NY and the others would claim the new law makes our cases against them moot. It doesn't mean it would work, but it would make our job harder.

Someone needs to fight this fight so that the legislatures and congress know they have a line they cannot cross. It ain't going to be the people of Texas. It is going to be us.

kcbrown
01-11-2011, 5:06 PM
I'm not convinced that passage of the Thune amendment would have a significant effect on our ability to fight for CCW here, at least at the legislative level. The reason is that it's about concealed carry in CA on the part of out-of-staters, which means the guns will be completely out of sight. Nobody will actually see anything different.

And the powers-that-be don't give a cr*p that out-of-staters can do things we can't, even on "our own" soil. Well, they "care" to the degree that they'd attempt to prevent out-of-staters from doing those things if possible, since freedom for the locals is an anathema to them...

In fact, I expect an enormous amount of harassment of out-of-state CCWers by law enforcement in the more populous areas, because some people won't conceal as well as others. Those that don't will either get directly noticed and targeted by law enforcement, or will be contacted by law enforcement as a result of frantic "man with a gun :willy_nilly:" calls.

But then, maybe I'm just "overly pessimistic"... :TFH:

IrishPirate
01-11-2011, 5:12 PM
good news....i think....i doubt that AZ will pass a hi-cap mag ban.

Patrick-2
01-11-2011, 5:13 PM
...
That just about coincides with the debt ceiling bill, which is nice because:


The debt ceiling bill is the "mother of all must-pass bills". If it does not pass the government's credit rating will go to junk and the government will shut down all of its operations. Srsly. Everything. Troops would need to pay out of pocket for commercial flights home from Afghanistan.
I assume that Congress would like to pass the debt ceiling bill by voice vote if at all possible. I know that some in Congress will try to make it an on-record vote, but most of the conservatives who will vote for it would prefer it to be off-record. That will line up nicely with allowing liberals to vote off-record for the TA. We'll see if the Tea Party movement has the juice to make this an on-record vote or not.




Brilliant analysis on the timing and politics involved.

blackberg
01-11-2011, 5:27 PM
At the end of the day this might get sold to the CA legislature as a money and power issue. Currently Sheriffs issue discretionary. The state might consider taking it away from the sheriff discretion and collecting the fees at the state level. Millions of dollars are at stake, maybe tens of millions in new revenues from permit fees and renewals, new revenues which the state badly needs. Of course, we can challenge the constitutionality of charging fees to exercise a right later. "One step at a time" she said, eh?

hmm make it shall issue and collect (reasonable )fees at the state level, close budget gap :)

-bb

RRangel
01-11-2011, 5:37 PM
My bet is some anti-gun stuff will pass. I predict a mag ban will pass, as this is an easy target and will appear reasonable to most in light of what happened. At best, maybe an agreement to give up mags for carry rights could be done.

I think you've been in California too long. The rest of the nation doesn't think like this. :)

FastFinger
01-11-2011, 5:41 PM
My bet is some anti-gun stuff will pass. I predict a mag ban will pass, as this is an easy target and will appear reasonable to most in light of what happened.

Did you actually say "target"?

Hater terrorist. Media authorities have been alerted.

Skidmark
01-11-2011, 5:47 PM
Thanks for the update - I'll certainly write to Boxer and Feinstein if the Thune Amendment is attached to a Senate bill, letting them know there's support for it here.

jpigeon
01-11-2011, 6:00 PM
This is long over due. It should have been done back in 96...

CCWFacts
01-11-2011, 6:56 PM
Now...for the part that will sting us all here: We do not want the Thune Amendment to include OOS carry permits. At all.

If the TA allowed this, CA, MD, NY and the others would claim the new law makes our cases against them moot. It doesn't mean it would work, but it would make our job harder.

Absolutely agree. All those cases would be mooted. The defendants would just say, "plaintiff has no standing. He can get a Utah permit and carry. Why is he wasting our time?"

Brilliant analysis on the timing and politics involved.

Thank you. Although I'm thinking someone in the Senate will demand a recorded vote on the debt ceiling. But it doesn't matter, because if Sen. Feinstein's constituents ask her why she voted to pass a bill that includes the TA, she'll roll her eyes and say, "look, bozo, the United States government would cease to exist if I didn't vote 'yes' on that bill." It gives even the most anti-gun senators strong political cover for a yes vote.

If TA passes , CA residents might be able to take permanent residency in other states. It won't be cheap, but for those who have parents in another state, or vacation homes, or is just willing to buy or rent in a SI state can change permanent residences. Homes in Nevada and Arizona can be had pretty inexpensively relative to the COL in California. Maybe a couple of die yards can split the rent on a 2 or 3 bedroom apt.

You're not looking at it right. California business owners already have a big incentive to arrange it so that they are not California residents. Nevada has no state income tax or sales tax, and is shall-issue. And California taxes might be going up soon, if JB can get his special ballot prop to pass.

Tom Gresham
01-11-2011, 7:16 PM
She even mentioned Schumer, and how he is not on board with this, but he would be willing to allow a provision to allow truckers to be able to carry

I don't understand this. Truckers can carry now in accordance with state laws. As with any traveler, they must be aware of how laws change from state to state.

mblat
01-11-2011, 7:17 PM
Absolutely agree. All those cases would be mooted. The defendants would just say, "plaintiff has no standing. He can get a Utah permit and carry. Why is he wasting our time?"

And your point is? I want to be able to carry and couldn't care less if it takes Utah permit to do so.....
That is said, there are other good reasons why we wouldn't want that; it just dismissal of some court cases aren't it.

adrenalinemedic
01-11-2011, 7:53 PM
And your point is? I want to be able to carry and couldn't care less if it takes Utah permit to do so.....


This. Especially when a UT (or WA in my case) permit is a lot cheaper, lasts a lot longer, and has considerably less hoops to jump through.

Why would we fight to pay more to carry for less time?


Some people mentioned getting carry rights back through 'reprehensible' methods...not being able to protect ones self in line with the Constitution is whats reprehensible. Don't forget that.

ke6guj
01-11-2011, 7:58 PM
I don't understand this. Truckers can carry now in accordance with state laws. As with any traveler, they must be aware of how laws change from state to state.

I seem to recall something about the commercial license status of a trucker causing there to be restrictions on the carry of firearms in the cab of the truck.

dustoff31
01-11-2011, 8:03 PM
I seem to recall something about the commercial license status of a trucker causing there to be restrictions on the carry of firearms in the cab of the truck.

Nope. Not true. As long as the driver is in compliance with the laws of whatever state he is in, he's GTG.

What you are making reference to is an old often repeated misintrepreted reading of an FMCSA regulation concerning the carrying firearms cargo in the cab.

Paladin
01-11-2011, 9:25 PM
So, roughly 7 million SF visitors/year are from inside the US but not California (or DC or New York City, who might be expected to have few CCW holders).

Well, y'asked, sorta.Holy Moly! If only 2% carry while visiting here, that will be 140,000 CCWers in SF over the course of a year. That's 140,000 in a county w/a pop of only 800,000!

I'm sure sooner or later a BG/s will try to mug/rob/shoot one of those law-abiding vacationers and he'll get the surprise of his lifetime! :2guns: If the local media runs the story, the antis will hate it and reasonable people on the fence may open their ears to what we have to say.

When this passes both chambers of Congress, we've got to make posts on the big national forums calling for gunnies to visit SF and to CCW while there. That way they'll be good to go (vacation in SF), by the time O signs the legislation.

We'll have to tell SF Chron about it so that they can run a story and get all the anti locals up in arms. They'll DEMAND the BoS pass a law forbidding it, and if the BoS does, the NRA/SAF/CGF can swoop in w/a preemption lawsuit and earn more $$$, which will go to promoting our RKBA in CA.

kcbrown
01-11-2011, 10:02 PM
Holy Moly! If only 2% carry while visiting here, that will be 140,000 CCWers in SF over the course of a year. That's 140,000 in a county w/a pop of only 800,000!

I'm sure sooner or later a BG/s will try to mug/rob/shoot one of those law-abiding vacationers and he'll get the surprise of his lifetime! :2guns: If the local media runs the story, the antis will hate it and reasonable people on the fence may open their ears to what we have to say.


Heh. You wish.

No, what will happen is that the local media will trot it out as a "killing" of a "local" by an out of state resident who "thinks he doesn't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us" or some nonsense like that. Of course, the "local" will be the "gunshot victim" and the law-abiding vacationer will be the "gunman".

That's how it'll play on the national news as well, if it gets out that far.



We'll have to tell SF Chron about it so that they can run a story and get all the anti locals up in arms. They'll DEMAND the BoS pass a law forbidding it, and if the BoS does, the NRA/SAF/CGF can swoop in w/a preemption lawsuit and earn more $$$, which will go to promoting our RKBA in CA.Yep. And while the law is on the books, out-of-staters that CCW will be arrested and jailed. Frankly, I expect to see some of that even without such a law on the books.

N6ATF
01-11-2011, 10:11 PM
Arrested and jailed without a law? Why wouldn't the victim disarmers just skip that nonsense and go directly to taking "two weeks off!"?

CCWFacts
01-11-2011, 10:11 PM
I'm sure sooner or later a BG/s will try to mug/rob/shoot one of those law-abiding vacationers and he'll get the surprise of his lifetime!

I can think of one loser who will need to find a new career, or will end up dead:

jc2lAgSRiXk

He's called the Bush Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Famous_Bushman) (yes he's famous enough to have a Wiki page), and he's been doing that routine to tourists for years. He has been charged with misdemeanors (jury wouldn't convict) and I believe sued to try to get him to stop it. Now it looks like Senator Thune will help him find a more meaningful and civil way to spend his days, or else he will end up being shot.

I must say, I left my heart in San Francisco. I love the city. But I hate the fact that the city has been totally overrun with mentally ill homeless people and street thugs. The Haight is full of no-account young thugs with mean dogs who intimidate anyone who is there for some legitimate purpose. They claim their dogs are ADA-protected and bring them into restaurants, just because it's fun to stand down business owner types.

It's hurting business but there's little they can do about it. These no-account thugs often practice something that's on the border between panhandling and robbery. Tourists are scared or intimidated into giving them $5, making for a very unpleasant experience. I don't know why tourists still go there. In the old days no-accounts like that would be taken out of town and told not to come back.

With hundreds of thousands of people CARRYING GUNS, and the thugs not knowing who it is... we can expect a return of civility to the streets of SF. Some thugs and violent mentally ill will end up dead. I have no problem with that.

It is a shame what has happened to the city, where the streets are full of intimidation by thugs and are despoiled by the mentally ill who do whatever they feel they need to do right there in public, and the public either tolerates it or actively supports it.

I wish they would pass laws that would, to use a phrase from the anti-sit-lie-protesters, criminalize the homeless, so they could be sent to minimum security work camps somewhere.

Mendo223
01-11-2011, 10:19 PM
My bet is some anti-gun stuff will pass. I predict a mag ban will pass, as this is an easy target and will appear reasonable to most in light of what happened. At best, maybe an agreement to give up mags for carry rights could be done.

i heard them talking on the radio today about banning hi cap magazines in AZ...they were talking about how in california you can only have ten rounds, and that jared loughner was only able to shoot so many people due to his 30 round glock magazine....

safewaysecurity
01-11-2011, 10:30 PM
I can think of one loser who will need to find a new career, or will end up dead:

jc2lAgSRiXk

.

HEY! BUSHMAN IS AWESOME!

CCWFacts
01-11-2011, 10:54 PM
HEY! BUSHMAN IS AWESOME!

He scares people into giving him money. After the Thune Amendment passes, he will need to retire from the intimidation business and find another job. You can bet there are no such antics in San Antonio.

I realize he provides great amusement for some people, but what he is doing is non-consensual. You would think that SF wouldn't be cool with that, but apparently non-consensual is ok so long as the perpetrators and victims are of the appropriate social and demographic status.

He has already nearly been beaten up by victims who weren't amused. Add guns into the mix after March...

How is it that someone needs to spend hundreds of dollars dealing with the SF bureaucracy in order to shine shoes (http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-06-04/news/17208451_1_larry-moore-shoeshine-man-city-housing) for willing and eager customers, while a homeless crazy is allowed to frighten tourists all day long, every day, for years, with no trouble. Hmm, I guess that shows where the city's sympathies are. Any business owner, no matter how small, is part of the "deprecated classes".

Window_Seat
01-11-2011, 11:49 PM
It might also end the era of Doorbell Ditch... :(

US6ALOpItng

:p:p:p

Erik.

Scarecrow Repair
01-12-2011, 4:44 AM
Nevada has no state income tax or sales tax, and is shall-issue.

Income tax, no. Sales tax, 6.85% state, 1.25% Las Vegas.

Patrick-2
01-12-2011, 6:45 AM
And your point is? I want to be able to carry and couldn't care less if it takes Utah permit to do so.....
That is said, there are other good reasons why we wouldn't want that; it just dismissal of some court cases aren't it.

Let me fix this for you:

And your point is? I want to be able to carry and couldn't care less if it takes Utah permit to do so.....
That is said, there are other good reasons why we wouldn't want that; it's just dismissal of some court cases aren't it. getting recognition of our right to bear arms from the Supreme Court is not worth it

I know you want a permit as soon as possible. But such impatience now would be a short-sighted - and short-lived - moment of triumph. Here are some facts to digest: you have no recognized constitutional right to bear arms in public. Period. Not even in shall-issue states. None. Nada. Zip.

The only carry "rights" you have anywhere in this nation are those gifted upon you by benevolent politicians by way of legislative fiat. I personally do not trust my rights to them (or any elected body).

"But wait!", you say. "The Second Amendment says..."

The Second Amendment is useless when it comes to public bearing of arms for self defense until someone fights to get the right recognized through... court cases. The same cases you would so casually toss.

Legislatures are free to remove any gift they give you by a simple vote. What they cannot do is remove a recognized fundamental right. They cannot force you to go to a state church, for instance. The Thune Amendment is a positive step forward and long overdue. BUT...it does nothing when it comes to drawing a line in the sand. A future Congress can take it all back and make it even worse than it is today. Don't let the words of the Amendment fool you: all that text can change in a single day.

"Rights" equate to liberty. A carry permit might equate to some security. What is the old saw about those willing to trade some liberty for a little security...?

We have momentum and some willing justices on the Supreme Court. We need to keep this train running at full steam as long as we can, or we sacrifice everything in the name of impatient expedience. And that means you and I need to keep fighting and waiting until we win.

mblat
01-12-2011, 8:13 AM
Let me fix this for you:



I know you want a permit as soon as possible. But such impatience now would be a short-sighted - and short-lived - moment of triumph. Here are some facts to digest: you have no recognized constitutional right to bear arms in public. Period. Not even in shall-issue states. None. Nada. Zip.

The only carry "rights" you have anywhere in this nation are those gifted upon you by benevolent politicians by way of legislative fiat. I personally do not trust my rights to them (or any elected body).

"But wait!", you say. "The Second Amendment says..."

The Second Amendment is useless when it comes to public bearing of arms for self defense until someone fights to get the right recognized through... court cases. The same cases you would so casually toss.

Legislatures are free to remove any gift they give you by a simple vote. What they cannot do is remove a recognized fundamental right. They cannot force you to go to a state church, for instance. The Thune Amendment is a positive step forward and long overdue. BUT...it does nothing when it comes to drawing a line in the sand. A future Congress can take it all back and make it even worse than it is today. Don't let the words of the Amendment fool you: all that text can change in a single day.

"Rights" equate to liberty. A carry permit might equate to some security. What is the old saw about those willing to trade some liberty for a little security...?

We have momentum and some willing justices on the Supreme Court. We need to keep this train running at full steam as long as we can, or we sacrifice everything in the name of impatient expedience. And that means you and I need to keep fighting and waiting until we win.

You seriously giving me quote on “liberty vs. security”?
The only way to guarantee ANY right is to have popular consensus that the right indeed exist. If such consensus isn't present no court case will help. Like it or not, if majority of population will decide that 2nd doesn’t mean “right to carry” sooner or later laws will be adapted (and those laws will be deemed constitutional) that will make carry too cumbersome for most and therefore will forbid it de facto if not de jure. Leguslature can change mind? So can courts..... Let’s say you will get favorable decision from SCOTUS tomorrow (and that is porbable outcome, but far from guaranteed). Who says the court won’t overrule itself (invent new legal concept) in ten/twenty years? See Lawrence vs. Texas......
I can’t think of better way to prevent such outcome than to make carrying common place.

So, damn right. Given a choice between “we all can carry today” and “we will get SCOTUS decision in couple years” I will take the former. For no other reason that it will save somebody’s life NOW.

To put it another way. Would you really be sorry if CA legislature would adopt decent CCW law today? That would moot all those court cases also……. Logical extension is that it would be good for Alaskan citizens if Alaskan leguslature went nuts and outlaw carry, because it would provide them with oportunity to challange such desicion in courts.However, I agree that granting me right to carry with Utah license here in CA is wrong on so many levels and should not be included in TA amendment.

J.D.Allen
01-12-2011, 8:59 AM
I'm not convinced that passage of the Thune amendment would have a significant effect on our ability to fight for CCW here, at least at the legislative level. The reason is that it's about concealed carry in CA on the part of out-of-staters, which means the guns will be completely out of sight. Nobody will actually see anything different.


They will see us if we all get together at starbucks wearing I HAVE A GUN t-shirts. That would be fun! :D

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 9:29 AM
I doubt a mag ban will pass as well. The 1st Amendment is probably more at risk than the 2nd.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

The first amendment has already fallen, and the second has been listing badly for quite some time.

Wherryj
01-12-2011, 9:33 AM
Income tax, no. Sales tax, 6.85% state, 1.25% Las Vegas.

Sure, rub it in. I'm in Alameda Co., and the voters here voted in a 9.75% sales tax to go with some of the highest state income taxes around.

Patrick-2
01-12-2011, 10:49 AM
You seriously giving me quote on “liberty vs. security”?
The only way to guarantee ANY right is to have popular consensus that the right indeed exist. If such consensus isn't present no court case will help. Like it or not, if majority of population will decide that 2nd doesn’t mean “right to carry” sooner or later laws will be adapted (and those laws will be deemed constitutional) that will make carry too cumbersome for most and therefore will forbid it de facto if not de jure. Leguslature can change mind? So can courts..... Let’s say you will get favorable decision from SCOTUS tomorrow (and that is porbable outcome, but far from guaranteed). Who says the court won’t overrule itself (invent new legal concept) in ten/twenty years? See Lawrence vs. Texas......
I can’t think of better way to prevent such outcome than to make carrying common place.

So, damn right. Given a choice between “we all can carry today” and “we will get SCOTUS decision in couple years” I will take the former. For no other reason that it will save somebody’s life NOW.

To put it another way. Would you really be sorry if CA legislature would adopt decent CCW law today? That would moot all those court cases also……. Logical extension is that it would be good for Alaskan citizens if Alaskan leguslature went nuts and outlaw carry, because it would provide them with oportunity to challange such desicion in courts.However, I agree that granting me right to carry with Utah license here in CA is wrong on so many levels and should not be included in TA amendment.

I am not looking to pick a fight, but you are demonstrably wrong and have a short grasp on the Constitution and the history of civil rights in this nation. Our republic is built on the idea that some rights are so fundamental they exist even in the absence of government. Self protection, as ensconced in the Second Amendment, is one of them. Civil Rights in this nation are not subject to popularity contests.

Segregation: Popular. It fell.

Anti-Mysogeny Laws: Popular. They fell.

Poll taxes: Popular. They fell.

We could go on.


But won't.

mblat
01-12-2011, 11:19 AM
Civil Rights in this nation are not subject to popularity contests.

That so funny. And you saying this after 5-4 in Heller and McDonald? You do realize that if Gore would've got 300(? or so?) more votes in Florida the best we could've hoped for is for Heller NEVER making it to SCOTUS? Gore would get to nominate at least TWO judges.

Exactly based on the history of civil right in this Country one should conclude that the Consitution says not what is actually sasy; but what SCOTUS decides today.
And what SCOTUS decides today is highly influenced not only by popular opinion but also by many other factors. Some of which have nothing to do with ideas this Republic was founded on.

Patrick-2
01-12-2011, 1:05 PM
And how does any of that buttress the argument that tossing every pro-gun court case we are fighting, all in the name of mblat getting a carry permit as a revocable gift from a politician whore, better than using the good court we have now to make our rights a bit more permanent?

Sit back and think it through. This isn't about your permit today. This is about everyone's right from here on out. SCOTUS does not change its mind often. A strong showing on 2A issues over the next five years or so will endure much longer than the whims of a political class who care about only one thing: themselves.

We are drawing a line in the sand. It is not immutable, but it is far more durable than anything the legislative branch can bestow. Some of us will need to wait, but the long-term effect is worth it.

You can continue to disagree. I'll respect that. But thankfully these cases will continue. If a permit to carry a firearm means that much to you, you can easily move out of state. There are 43 better options out there (I include Wisconsin as it is expected to go Shall-Issue this year).

mblat
01-12-2011, 1:40 PM
And how does any of that buttress the argument that tossing every pro-gun court case we are fighting, all in the name of mblat getting a carry permit as a revocable gift from a politician whore, better than using the good court we have now to make our rights a bit more permanent?

Sit back and think it through. This isn't about your permit today. This is about everyone's right from here on out. SCOTUS does not change its mind often. A strong showing on 2A issues over the next five years or so will endure much longer than the whims of a political class who care about only one thing: themselves.

We are drawing a line in the sand. It is not immutable, but it is far more durable than anything the legislative branch can bestow. Some of us will need to wait, but the long-term effect is worth it.

You can continue to disagree. I'll respect that. But thankfully these cases will continue. If a permit to carry a firearm means that much to you, you can easily move out of state. There are 43 better options out there (I include Wisconsin as it is expected to go Shall-Issue this year).

To argue we need to define what we disagree on. To me it seems that you prefer courts to legislature.
I do not agree with that position in principal. I fully acknowledge, however, that current makeup of CA legislature leaves no hope. I also acknowledge that there seems to be no clear path for congress to force CCW issue on a State. That leaves courts. Fine. I do not think anybody rational would argue with that.

However, given a choice I will take decent CCW law from CA legislature that moots ALL current CCW cases over highly unpredictable court fight. I am not certain WHY you hold SCOTUS in such high regard, when it's members had proven time and time again (on both left and right), that they are polical animals.


And BTW. You are not drawing line in sand. You are praying for Scalia/Robert/Alito not to die. Because if they will you will be praying for SCOTUS not to take ANY of your court cases you so in love with.

Patrick-2
01-12-2011, 2:17 PM
I want to be clear that I am arguing the points, not the person. This is the internet, and sometimes a direct response can communicate an argumentative stance when in person you would see me doing what I think I am doing: strongly debating a point in a friendly manner. You have not seemed to be offended so far, but I just want that out there. Were we in the same room, we'd probably be doing this over food and drink.


I don't favor any of the branches over another when it comes to civil rights. I have extensive experience with the Executive Branch, but they are nowhere in this discussion.

What I do favor are durable solutions. I concede your point that SCOTUS is a moving landscape...that the loss of one of "our" justices could/would set us back years. That said, we go with what we have today and leave the lamentations to the other side.

Supreme Court decisions, while highly debated even years later, are highly durable. And they can be inviolate. For instance, nobody is even suggesting today that guns can be restricted inside the home. Nobody. Not Chicago, not Bloomberg and not DC. They are playing games in their implementations (the legislative effect of bias), but they agree they lost the fight.

This is what I want for the bearing of arms in public. A durable solution.

Could we lose one or more big cases? Absolutely. I can easily write a scenario in my head for that, even with "our" justices intact. But at the end of the day, even such a case would not preclude favorable legislative action down the road.

So it's a matter of permanence. Compare the several options as I see them:

- Judicial Win: We shoot! We score! We win! Game over for CA. We get to argue over the implementation details but the state is now Shall-Issue with the equivalent of an unrestricted permit. The legislature will play games trying to narrow the right, but we've won the big argument and will fight again. In essence, the CA legislature will be bickering over the borders of their lost territory.

- Judicial Loss: A huge loss. Nothing changes, but the CA legislature is free to do as it wishes (within the bounds of Heller and McDonald). That includes staying the course (no-issue) or even going Shall-Issue as you suggest. In other words, the loss - while dispiriting - will at best keep things as they are today. And it still opens the door to federal action to circumvent CA (federal permits, anyone?).

- Legislative Win: Federal or state; it doesn't matter. You get your permit. But it is not a "right". It is a privilege subject to legislative intent and desire. It is revocable within hours of a new legislative body taking the reigns (or in response to a particularly bad news event). Because the initial "win" stopped all those court cases from moving forward, you have no "right". As a result, the best you can do is go back to a future Supreme Court and hope against all hope they still like people who like guns.

- Legislative Loss: Hell, that's what we have now so why discuss it? ;)


So I don't disagree with legislative action in our favor. I think the Thune Amendment, as we expect it to be released, is a good and overdue thing.

But the legislature can do damage, too. See the history of Heller...the NRA lobbied Congress to force changes to DC laws (they can do this in DC) for the express purpose of "mooting" the Parker/Heller case. Had they been successful, the core gun-rights you enjoy today would not have been recognized.

And at the end of the day, a loss in the courts does not preempt the current or a future legislative body from bestowing greater privilges upon we common subjects.

As a good example of that, the SAF is arguing for carry rights but acknowledges that a state can define the manner of carry and require a permit. That said, the Arizona and Vermont legislatures decided they would dispense with both. Even though the Supreme Court will likely say they can be more restrictive, nothing will say they must.

kcbrown
01-12-2011, 4:25 PM
As a good example of that, the SAF is arguing for carry rights but acknowledges that a state can define the manner of carry and require a permit. That said, the Arizona and Vermont legislatures decided they would dispense with both. Even though the Supreme Court will likely say they can be more restrictive, nothing will say they must.

That's not strictly true.

Federal legislation can say they must be more restrictive.

Patrick-2
01-12-2011, 5:27 PM
That's not strictly true.

Federal legislation can say they must be more restrictive.

True. My point was that in the event we lose at the Supreme Court, a state could still be more friendly to 2A than not. But absolutely it is true the Feds could make a mess. Examples abound today, not least of which the recent attempts by the ATF to collect rifle sales data.

I couldn't cover all the possibilities.

Pred@tor
01-12-2011, 5:31 PM
My Missouri permit would be good to go in California if this amendment passes. I have family out there still and plan on visiting it'd be nice to be armed too. :D