PDA

View Full Version : How can California.....


vincewarde
01-21-2011, 2:10 PM
Not recognize out of state CCW permits, when states are forced to recognize each other's marriages and divorces, etc under the "full faith and credit" provision of the constitution?

Also, since states are not permitted to regulate interstate commerce, how can California outlaw IMPORTATION of hi-caps when there is no law against possession? Clearly, there is no interstate commerce problem with outlawing in state sales and even possession, but how is banning the personal importation of hi-caps different from banning me from bringing in Florida orange juice?

Just wondering......

gobler
01-21-2011, 2:13 PM
Because our legislators are morons. They think they have total control of the surfs.

CEDaytonaRydr
01-21-2011, 2:45 PM
IIRC, isn't there a bill that was drafted, or proposed (or something) which would do just this: Make a CCW valid across state lines?

stix213
01-21-2011, 2:47 PM
IIRC, isn't there a bill that was drafted, or proposed (or something) which would do just this: Make a CCW valid across state lines?

Called the Thune Ammendment. Rumor has it that it will be attached to some must pass legislation around March of this year. There have been several threads on this topic this week.

rero360
01-21-2011, 3:11 PM
So if that were to pass, would an individual living in CA with CCW permits from other states, say PA and NY, be able then to carry in CA?

dustoff31
01-21-2011, 3:24 PM
So if that were to pass, would an individual living in CA with CCW permits from other states, say PA and NY, be able then to carry in CA?

Not as the bill is currently written. It was seen as a hinderance to passage. There are states other than CA, even shall issue states, that object to their residents carrying on out of state permits.

kermit315
01-21-2011, 3:56 PM
There are states other than CA, even shall issue states, that object to their residents carrying on out of state permits.

They treat them in the same fashion as drivers licenses: You cant legally hold a Nevada drivers license if you live in CA, with certain exceptions.

chris
01-21-2011, 3:59 PM
Not recognize out of state CCW permits, when states are forced to recognize each other's marriages and divorces, etc under the "full faith and credit" provision of the constitution?

Also, since states are not permitted to regulate interstate commerce, how can California outlaw IMPORTATION of hi-caps when there is no law against possession? Clearly, there is no interstate commerce problem with outlawing in state sales and even possession, but how is banning the personal importation of hi-caps different from banning me from bringing in Florida orange juice?

Just wondering......

because this state is just plain stupid.

zhyla
01-21-2011, 3:59 PM
It makes some good sense that one state cannot issue permits (in general) for another state. If Arizona started issuing camping permits for CA campgrounds it would make no sense.

CCW reciprocity is a good and decent thing for states to agree to recognize, but there's a reason it's not automatic.

dustoff31
01-21-2011, 4:08 PM
They treat them in the same fashion as drivers licenses: You cant legally hold a Nevada drivers license if you live in CA, with certain exceptions.

Yes, but it goes even deeper than that. For example, several years ago UT and AZ had a formal reciprocity agreement. I can't remember exactly what the issue was, but AZ residents who did not qualify for a permit in AZ, could qualify for a UT NR permit and carried on that.

AZ said, Hey if we won't give this guy a permit, and he lives here, why should we recognize some other state's NR permit? So the agreement was cancelled. Of course all of this has now been overcome by events.

kermit315
01-21-2011, 4:14 PM
Yes, but it goes even deeper than that. For example, several years ago UT and AZ had a formal reciprocity agreement. I can't remember exactly what the issue was, but AZ residents who did not qualify for a permit in AZ, could qualify for a UT NR permit and carried on that.

AZ said, Hey if we won't give this guy a permit, and he lives here, why should we recognize some other state's NR permit? So the agreement was cancelled. Of course all of this has now been overcome by events.

I understand that, same thing with the license thing. If you get a DUI in CA that permanently revokes your license, you cant just go to NV and get a new license while living in CA.

J.D.Allen
01-21-2011, 4:26 PM
It makes some good sense that one state cannot issue permits (in general) for another state. If Arizona started issuing camping permits for CA campgrounds it would make no sense.

CCW reciprocity is a good and decent thing for states to agree to recognize, but there's a reason it's not automatic.

Apples to Oranges. Camping permits do not involve the exersize of a fundamental constitutional right. Nor do driver licenses. The 2A is a FEDERALLY protected right. Legal U.S. residents wishing to travel between the states should not be hindered in the exersize of that right due to the whims of an individual state.

Baconator
01-21-2011, 4:29 PM
I never understood how states could legislate about guns at all. The Constitution says that states have the right to deal with anything not mentioned in the Constitution (the reason that AZ 1070 was not allowed). Guns are in the Constitution, making them a federally legislated thing.

stix213
01-21-2011, 5:26 PM
I never understood how states could legislate about guns at all. The Constitution says that states have the right to deal with anything not mentioned in the Constitution (the reason that AZ 1070 was not allowed). Guns are in the Constitution, making them a federally legislated thing.

Freedom of speech is in the constitution, but the states are allowed some limited forms of regulation on the topic. Commercial speech for example, issuing permits for political marches, and making it illegal to phone in a phony 911 call. While the states are allowed these limited regulations, they cannot just ban all speech of course. In the same manner they cannot just ban guns, but will even by SCOTUS be allowed some form of regulation.

The Chester case makes it look like law abiding citizens will get the protection of "strict scrutiny" for owning firearms in the courts. That covers the keep side of "keep and bear." I'm really curious though what level of scrutiny the bear side gets. That should show us just how far the states can go in regulating the carrying of guns outside your home.

ALSystems
01-22-2011, 7:54 AM
I never understood how states could legislate about guns at all. The Constitution says that states have the right to deal with anything not mentioned in the Constitution (the reason that AZ 1070 was not allowed). Guns are in the Constitution, making them a federally legislated thing.
The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of US laws and the Bill of Rights deals with fundamental rights. The 2nd Amendment was not "incorporated" (until 2010 with the MacDonald case) and therefore did not apply to states which did not have also have a 2nd Amendment written in their State Constitution. CA,NY,NJ,MA,MD,IL were the states that didn't and also have the worst gun laws (no surprise here). Californians apparently had no 2nd Amendment Rights until 2010. This is also why it was hard to defend against the oppressive gun laws until recently. I know this is illogical and goes against what I thought I knew until I started reading Calguns.

The MacDonald case changed this. The 2nd Amendment finally applied to all the states.

Lulfas
01-22-2011, 8:00 AM
Not recognize out of state CCW permits, when states are forced to recognize each other's marriages and divorces, etc under the "full faith and credit" provision of the constitution?


Quite a few politicians enjoy ignoring the marriage and divorce part too. See DOMA.

xr650r
01-22-2011, 8:09 AM
Marriage and divorce are not illegal in CA.

Jack L
01-22-2011, 8:20 AM
My experience is people in power do whatever they please until they are stopped by litigation. Insurance companies, lawyers, sheriffs, state politicians and so forth often do as they please like in AB962. I believe they count on the commoner to not have the funds or connections to do anything about their actions. And if you try, they try to beat you down with prolonged litigation only they can afford.

Without judges on 'our' side we are doomed. California is a basket case and going downhill at an alarming rate.

Andy Taylor
01-22-2011, 9:52 AM
Yes, but it goes even deeper than that. For example, several years ago UT and AZ had a formal reciprocity agreement. I can't remember exactly what the issue was, but AZ residents who did not qualify for a permit in AZ, could qualify for a UT NR permit and carried on that.

AZ said, Hey if we won't give this guy a permit, and he lives here, why should we recognize some other state's NR permit? So the agreement was cancelled. Of course all of this has now been overcome by events.

IIRC it wasn't that AZ would not issue the permit to the people who were doing this, it was that the UT CCW was much cheaper and therefore people were getting UT permits to save money over an AZ permit.

Andy Taylor
01-22-2011, 9:55 AM
Marriage and divorce are not illegal in CA.

Neither is CCW, as long as you have a permit.

My wife and I were (& still are) CA residents at the time we got married. We got a WA state marriage license and were married in Granger WA. That marriage is recognized by CA.

tabrisnet
01-22-2011, 11:49 AM
Drivers license and marriage license recognition may be a federal issue, but I believe there is supporting legislation at the state level that actually enforces the recognition. Not that I couldn't be wrong.

QQQ
01-22-2011, 12:15 PM
As long as we're talking about ideals and not reality here, then let's go all the way:

Nationwide Constitutional Carry.

That way we don't even have to go through the hoops and fork over all the time and money for a CCW.

hoffmang
01-22-2011, 12:28 PM
Concealed carry permits are a pretty modern invention. As such they didn't have the common law history that marriage and divorces had. Congress is clearly granted the power to fix the problem, almost did last session, and probably will fix it this session.

-Gene

Baconator
01-22-2011, 1:55 PM
The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of US laws and the Bill of Rights deals with fundamental rights. The 2nd Amendment was not "incorporated" (until 2010 with the MacDonald case) and therefore did not apply to states which did not have also have a 2nd Amendment written in their State Constitution. CA,NY,NJ,MA,MD,IL were the states that didn't and also have the worst gun laws (no surprise here). Californians apparently had no 2nd Amendment Rights until 2010. This is also why it was hard to defend against the oppressive gun laws until recently. I know this is illogical and goes against what I thought I knew until I started reading Calguns.

The MacDonald case changed this. The 2nd Amendment finally applied to all the states.

Freedom of speech is in the constitution, but the states are allowed some limited forms of regulation on the topic. Commercial speech for example, issuing permits for political marches, and making it illegal to phone in a phony 911 call. While the states are allowed these limited regulations, they cannot just ban all speech of course. In the same manner they cannot just ban guns, but will even by SCOTUS be allowed some form of regulation.

The Chester case makes it look like law abiding citizens will get the protection of "strict scrutiny" for owning firearms in the courts. That covers the keep side of "keep and bear." I'm really curious though what level of scrutiny the bear side gets. That should show us just how far the states can go in regulating the carrying of guns outside your home.

Thank you.

Dreaded Claymore
01-22-2011, 2:44 PM
Quite a few politicians enjoy ignoring the marriage and divorce part too. See DOMA.

Yeah, seriously. :mad:

CavTrooper
01-22-2011, 2:59 PM
Apples to Oranges. Camping permits do not involve the exersize of a fundamental constitutional right. Nor do driver licenses. The 2A is a FEDERALLY protected right. Legal U.S. residents wishing to travel between the states should not be hindered in the exersize of that right due to the whims of an individual state.

Flawed argument.

The 2A does not protect CCWs at this time.

dustoff31
01-22-2011, 5:50 PM
IIRC it wasn't that AZ would not issue the permit to the people who were doing this, it was that the UT CCW was much cheaper and therefore people were getting UT permits to save money over an AZ permit.

You may be right. But I keep thinking it had something to do with prior convictions/criminal history. That is, UT was a little less strict.

BigFatGuy
01-22-2011, 11:16 PM
Marriage and divorce are not illegal in CA.

They are for some of our citizens.

pitchbaby
01-23-2011, 1:31 AM
Concealed carry permits are a pretty modern invention. As such they didn't have the common law history that marriage and divorces had. Congress is clearly granted the power to fix the problem, almost did last session, and probably will fix it this session.

-Gene

Sorry Gene... but NOT fixed until it actually means something to those of us in California that can't get local permits to make it so Thune applies to us.

hoffmang
01-23-2011, 1:34 AM
Sorry Gene... but NOT fixed until it actually means something to those of us in California that can't get local permits to make it so Thune applies to us.

You don't get out of state much. I will consider it a major improvement to be able to carry in 49 other states on a UT/FL/OR/WA, etc. permit.

As you well know, we're on the local fix.

-Gene

pitchbaby
01-23-2011, 1:38 AM
You don't get out of state much. I will consider it a major improvement to be able to carry in 49 other states on a UT/FL/OR/WA, etc. permit.

As you well know, we're on the local fix.

-Gene

I get out of state lots... but I only ever go to NV, UT, and AZ.... I wish that were a joke... the scenery gets old after a while.

And yes... I know the local fix is on... it is for that reason that I'm all in with this crowd! (Can we make this ride go faster please... LOL)

themandylion
01-23-2011, 4:53 PM
The Constitution is supposed to be the basis of US laws and the Bill of Rights deals with fundamental rights. The 2nd Amendment was not "incorporated" (until 2010 with the MacDonald case) and therefore did not apply to states which did not have also have a 2nd Amendment written in their State Constitution.


The right to keep and bear arms is a God-given, ancient right, secured (not "granted") by the 2nd and 9th amendments.

"Incorporation" is a scheme that lawyers made up to deny God-given rights (apologies to the few good lawyers, especially those around here). "Incorporation" can be - weakly - argued to (previously, to the 14th) apply to the 1st amendment, since it says "Congress shall make no law." The 2nd has no such language.

People need to fundamentally change the relationship of government and the People, making the former truly servants of the latter. I'm sorry to say, voting won't be the means to do that ("if voting could change things, it would be illegal").

Even McDonald is not a panacea. It still "permits" so-called "reasonable restrictions." I'm sorry, "shall not be infringed" is plain English.

themandylion
01-23-2011, 6:31 PM
Flawed argument.

The 2A does not protect CCWs at this time.

Actually, it does: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As for the regime and its armed enforcers recognizing that fact, well, obviously, that's another story.

motorhead
01-23-2011, 6:48 PM
unfortunately, right now we stand infringed. anything that works against that is good.
BTW, since we're using the marriage/divorce analogy, ca does not recognize common law marriage.

themandylion
01-23-2011, 7:06 PM
unfortunately, right now we stand infringed. anything that works against that is good.

I totally agree.

If the boys (and probably a few girls) can make progress in the courts doing the "lawyer thing," BRAVO! to them. However, that likely will not be enough. I realize that those who believe in "working within the system" frown upon any references to the means used by the Founding Fathers, so as not to "frighten" those in black robes. However, maybe they should be - as Jefferson implied - frightened? "When the government fears the People..."

At this point, neither Heller nor McDonald have fundamentally changed anything. Will they? Perhaps...perhaps not in California. There's that "reasonable restrictions" and "compelling government interest" BS that has to be dealt with, instead of merely the plain English of the 2nd Amendment. I could stomach dealing with all the "incorporation" nonsense if it simply now meant that "shall not be infringed" instantaneously voided all State "laws" infringing on the 2nd Amendment...but it didn't do that. The Supreme Court can do that for sodomy, but can't do it for the 2nd Amendment? Priorities, I guess.

shtr45acp
01-23-2011, 7:15 PM
Not recognize out of state CCW permits, when states are forced to recognize each other's marriages and divorces, etc under the "full faith and credit" provision of the constitution?

Also, since states are not permitted to regulate interstate commerce, how can California outlaw IMPORTATION of hi-caps when there is no law against possession? Clearly, there is no interstate commerce problem with outlawing in state sales and even possession, but how is banning the personal importation of hi-caps different from banning me from bringing in Florida orange juice?

Just wondering......
How? Because Californicateya is the land of gun grabbin' left wing loonie liberals, and our legislators are the moronic cretans that capitalize on it. Sure, State's Rights are what we are talking about here, but when being "politically correct" superceeds individual rights, the idiot legislators we have use the leftie media freaks to their own advantage, esp in election years.

Lrchops
01-24-2011, 1:06 AM
Your driver license is good in every state you drive through! Your marriage license is valid in all states. Your college degree is valid in all states. Your social security card is valid in every state. Your CCW should be valid in all states. I am pretty sure your constitutional rights are valid in all states!!!!!

J.D.Allen
01-24-2011, 8:15 AM
Flawed argument.

The 2A does not protect CCWs at this time.

The fact that "carry" has not been formally "recognized" at this point does not mean it isn't inherently included in the right.

I will agree with you on one point though, CCW's as in, the instruments that are used to restrict our right to carry, were never intended to be part of the 2A.