PDA

View Full Version : CCW Reciprocity in CA


wireless
06-02-2012, 12:37 PM
I've been trying to follow HR822 the best I can, but I haven't been able to keep up. How are we looking at having this become federal law? What are out chances?

SilverTauron
06-02-2012, 1:44 PM
Zilch.

In brief:

Obama is seeking re-election, and the Democratic Party wants their leader to be selected for office after 2012. Advancing HR-822 to a vote in the Senate where it stands a good chance to pass will put Obama in a very bad corner politically:either he signs the pro-gun rights legislation into law and royally offends the Brady Campaign, the VPC, and the urban gun grabbing liberal vote he needs for re-election ( New York City alone has millions of votes) ...or he vetos it along Democrat party lines, and kisses the moderate and conservative vote goodbye in an election that's shaping up to be a bitter fight to the single digits in the polls.

Thus HR 822 is going to languish in the Judicial Committee exactly where the Democrat controlled Senate majority leader wants it.

wireless
06-02-2012, 2:42 PM
:facepalm: Damn!

vincewarde
06-02-2012, 9:28 PM
Zilch.

In brief:

Obama is seeking re-election, and the Democratic Party wants their leader to be selected for office after 2012. Advancing HR-822 to a vote in the Senate where it stands a good chance to pass will put Obama in a very bad corner politically:either he signs the pro-gun rights legislation into law and royally offends the Brady Campaign, the VPC, and the urban gun grabbing liberal vote he needs for re-election ( New York City alone has millions of votes) ...or he vetos it along Democrat party lines, and kisses the moderate and conservative vote goodbye in an election that's shaping up to be a bitter fight to the single digits in the polls.

Thus HR 822 is going to languish in the Judicial Committee exactly where the Democrat controlled Senate majority leader wants it.

Exactly - every swing state has shall issue CCW. Obama really needs these states. The bill won't move unless or until the Republicans gain control of the Senate. President Obama already has enough "gun problems" with Fast and Furious.

Dano2467
06-03-2012, 5:07 PM
Last I saw it wsa put on hold by our own Sen. Fienstien, I figured she did it cause it exempts IL ??? figured she wanted to get exclusion for CA since our wonderful republic already denies reciprocity.

SilverTauron
06-03-2012, 6:55 PM
Exactly - every swing state has shall issue CCW. Obama really needs these states. The bill won't move unless or until the Republicans gain control of the Senate. President Obama already has enough "gun problems" with Fast and Furious.

Agreed.

What must be made clear regarding HR-822 is that even if it does by some miracle become law,nationwide reciprocity in the sense that you can drive coast-to-coast with your carry piece and permit won't happen.

I watched the debate online when it passed the house last year, and the very wide differences between the reps is truly mind boggling.You would think the Reps from California and New Jersey lived in a different country from the ones hailing from Texas and the Carolinas;which in all practical reality they do. Our nation is too divided politically for "genuine" nationwide CCW to happen like this;all the die hard Disarmament Lobby politicos in NJ, IL, and CA won't just lay down and surrender just because of nationwide CCW. HR822 would become like the FOPA-respected in some places, and in others it would end up being used for birdcage lining.

Nationwide CCW law or not, don't expect to be touring New York City with a legally concealed handgun anytime soon.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 8:32 PM
Exactly - every swing state has shall issue CCW. Obama really needs these states. The bill won't move unless or until the Republicans gain control of the Senate. President Obama already has enough "gun problems" with Fast and Furious.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't that fact suggest that Obama could gain ground in the swing states by signing a reciprocity bill into law and only get hurt in states that will never vote for Romney, like CA, NY, and IL?

Gray Peterson
06-03-2012, 9:10 PM
We wouldn't want HR822 or the current Senate bills to pass. It needs to be enhanced with some of that language of that enhanced FOPA bill that Rep. Morgan Griffith introduced.

dantodd
06-03-2012, 10:37 PM
We wouldn't want HR822 or the current Senate bills to pass. It needs to be enhanced with some of that language of that enhanced FOPA bill that Rep. Morgan Griffith introduced.

Gotta Number for that proposed legislation? I'd like to look it up.

ETA: found it H.R. 4269

gunsmith
06-04-2012, 8:51 AM
We wouldn't want HR822 or the current Senate bills to pass. It needs to be enhanced with some of that language of that enhanced FOPA bill that Rep. Morgan Griffith introduced.

Any educated guesses on when/if it might get enhanced and/or passed and signed?

I'm a native of NY,NY and precisely what I want to do is visit my home town while concealed carrying.

SilverTauron
06-04-2012, 9:08 AM
I don't understand this. Wouldn't that fact suggest that Obama could gain ground in the swing states by signing a reciprocity bill into law and only get hurt in states that will never vote for Romney, like CA, NY, and IL?

The fly in the ointment is that the population of those liberal states easily blows away the swing states.

New York CITY alone has millions of left-leaning voters. As does Chicago ,San Fransisco, LA, Baltimore, and other urban democrat strong grounds. Between those cities and voters who will pick Obama due to a certain stance on a specific issue , like women's rights to name one, Zero doesn't need the Flyover Country vote to stay in office.

He does need the Liberal bloc , however, and signing HR822 would roundly piss off the mayors of every single one of those liberal cities. Then there's the minor detail that expanding gun rights is simply not in Obama's management plan-look at F&F. Better for Obama-and by extension the Democratic Party-that HR822 bill stay buried in committee for good.

mdimeo
06-04-2012, 9:22 AM
The fly in the ointment is that the population of those liberal states easily blows away the swing states..

Not relevant, as liberal states are nearly all winner-take-all contests in the electoral college. Swing states are where the action is.

dfletcher
06-04-2012, 9:28 AM
The fly in the ointment is that the population of those liberal states easily blows away the swing states.

New York CITY alone has millions of left-leaning voters. As does Chicago ,San Fransisco, LA, Baltimore, and other urban democrat strong grounds. Between those cities and voters who will pick Obama due to a certain stance on a specific issue , like women's rights to name one, Zero doesn't need the Flyover Country vote to stay in office.

He does need the Liberal bloc , however, and signing HR822 would roundly piss off the mayors of every single one of those liberal cities. Then there's the minor detail that expanding gun rights is simply not in Obama's management plan-look at F&F. Better for Obama-and by extension the Democratic Party-that HR822 bill stay buried in committee for good.

Yours is the conventional wisdom, I'd like to toss out another approach.

I believe the President signing the bill would be a net gain for him because voters in those less populated swing states, where the margin of winning or losing may be thin, are pro-gun. Signing the bill would help him in VA, FL and a few other states. If he picked up a few votes in those states it could make a difference. He can afford to lose a boatload of votes in CA & NY and still take each state.

Besides, who else are the left leaning, committed liberal folks going to vote for - a Republican?

I think ultimately the President will not sign it because it goes against his beliefs. He signed the CCW parks bill, that's small potatos compared to this. Unlike Bill Clinton, who moved to the middle after he and his party suffered a terrible mid-term election in 1994, this President hasn't made such a move.

SilverTauron
06-04-2012, 9:43 AM
Yours is the conventional wisdom, I'd like to toss out another approach.

I believe the President signing the bill would be a net gain for him because voters in those less populated swing states, where the margin of winning or losing may be thin, are pro-gun. Signing the bill would help him in VA, FL and a few other states. If he picked up a few votes in those states it could make a difference. He can afford to lose a boatload of votes in CA & NY and still take each state.

Gambling is not a good strategy to win an election as an incumbent candidate. Obama knows to a 99% certainty that if he does nothing he'll gain the liberal votes. He also knows that if he signs HR822 the liberals in said cities will walk away from him;as far as the misled masses in Chicago and New York City are concerned all HR822 does is permit slack jawed redneck yokels to carry in their "safe havens" of progressive gun control.

Liberals as a group are much more flexible in who they'll vote for. They trend toward the 'progressive' candidate, who is typically Democrat :but if a Republican comes to the table speaking the smooth talk of expanded gay and lesbian rights in addition to social welfare programs and whatnot, they'll switch sides -especially if their own horse sells them out, which is what signing HR822 into law will be interpreted as.



Besides, who else are the left leaning, committed liberal folks going to vote for - a Republican?

If their main horse doesn't appease them, yes they will. A conservative's values are more fixed than a Liberal who follows the trendy whims of pop culture media. Someone who cares about expansion of women's rights will vote for the guy who promises to do the most about it-regardless of what letter is before their name. It just so happens that electoral candidates who advocate that policy are Democrat.

Conversely, a conservative interested in the preservation of the RKBA will be immediately distrustful of any Democrat who promises expansion or preservation of the same. Not that I fault that perspective mind you-its just that in the calculus of elections, its easier to get liberals to switch than the alternative. Even if HR822 passed and was signed into law, I wouldn't vote for Obama. Neither would any other RKBA loving voter, and this is a fact Zero is well aware off. He risks offending his base for a questionable payoff in conservatives who MIGHT choose him over Romney-and judging from the "Romney , my dead cat, or Hitlers Ghost over Obama" posts during the Republican primaries he's wiser for playing things safe.



I think ultimately the President will not sign it because it goes against his beliefs. He signed the CCW parks bill, that's small potatos compared to this. Unlike Bill Clinton, who moved to the middle after he and his party suffered a terrible mid-term election in 1994, this President hasn't made such a move.

The "Parks Bill" was his concession to our side. He offered our side a tidbit of compromise to see just how many would change their "Anyone but Zero" stance. The lack of overwhelming support for an administration which is to this day covering up its business in Mexico is why HR822 won't go anywhere. Its all risk and no reward for the Dems at this point.

dfletcher
06-04-2012, 10:20 AM
Gambling is not a good strategy to win an election as an incumbent candidate. Obama knows to a 99% certainty that if he does nothing he'll gain the liberal votes. He also knows that if he signs HR822 the liberals in said cities will walk away from him;as far as the misled masses in Chicago and New York City are concerned all HR822 does is permit slack jawed redneck yokels to carry in their "safe havens" of progressive gun control.

Liberals as a group are much more flexible in who they'll vote for. They trend toward the 'progressive' candidate, who is typically Democrat :but if a Republican comes to the table speaking the smooth talk of expanded gay and lesbian rights in addition to social welfare programs and whatnot, they'll switch sides -especially if their own horse sells them out, which is what signing HR822 into law will be interpreted as.

If their main horse doesn't appease them, yes they will. A conservative's values are more fixed than a Liberal who follows the trendy whims of pop culture media. Someone who cares about expansion of women's rights will vote for the guy who promises to do the most about it-regardless of what letter is before their name. It just so happens that electoral candidates who advocate that policy are Democrat.

Conversely, a conservative interested in the preservation of the RKBA will be immediately distrustful of any Democrat who promises expansion or preservation of the same. Not that I fault that perspective mind you-its just that in the calculus of elections, its easier to get liberals to switch than the alternative. Even if HR822 passed and was signed into law, I wouldn't vote for Obama. Neither would any other RKBA loving voter, and this is a fact Zero is well aware off. He risks offending his base for a questionable payoff in conservatives who MIGHT choose him over Romney-and judging from the "Romney , my dead cat, or Hitlers Ghost over Obama" posts during the Republican primaries he's wiser for playing things safe.



I think a President who is in a dead tie may have to gamble a bit to pick up votes where he can. If we go to where the few votes count most it's in the swing states - and he does, I think, have votes to spare in CA & NY. So "will he lose NY or CA as a result?" isn't the question but rather "will he pick up enough undecideds & independents to offset the liberals he offended in those states and win?"

A map of the "swing states" shows, I think, a pro-gun vote helping him morethan hurting him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

I don't know that liberals are more flexible in who gets their vote, I think they are as inflexible as conservatives only on different subjects. I think a liberal is unlikely to vote for a hard core pro-life politician in the same vein a pro-gun conservative is unlikely to vote for an anti-gun politician. I agree, guns could be one of them, I don't know how much though.

It may be that liberals would swing given the opportunity, but in this election we don't see the President running against a pro-gay marriage, welfare expanding opponent.

I agree signing the bill will not change the minds of gun owners who are focused on guns - it won't change mine. But it's one more thing that may inch a "casual gun owner" voter a bit closer to allowing that he's OK.

I think it's an interesting close call.

NoJoke
06-04-2012, 11:26 AM
National reciprocity only makes sense at a rational level, look at my sig picture - the whole nation is "shall issue" except of us and a couple of other states. The irrational states. :rolleyes:

As much as I would like it to happen, we probably don't have the right mix in the house/senate/oval office to make it a reality....but one can hope.

I haven't been involved with the LTC issue for very long, so I'm not aware of the history, how do states evolve into "shall issue" from "no or may issue"? Has it always been by court decision?

gunsmith
06-04-2012, 6:04 PM
National reciprocity only makes sense at a rational level, look at my sig picture - the whole nation is "shall issue" except of us and a couple of other states. The irrational states. :rolleyes:

As much as I would like it to happen, we probably don't have the right mix in the house/senate/oval office to make it a reality....but one can hope.

I haven't been involved with the LTC issue for very long, so I'm not aware of the history, how do states evolve into "shall issue" from "no or may issue"? Has it always been by court decision?

I've been involved as much as I can since the turn of the century, I remain optimistic.
In 2004 I was told many times on forums that concealed/open carry in national parks would never happen.

I do however feel the LE community, including family members, have really let us down.
We helped them immensely with hr218 so they can have nat recip, and I do not see any national effort on their part to do the same.