Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

View Poll Results: How much would you pay for Law Enforcement Credentials
$0 I don't want them at any price 382 15.34%
$100 309 12.40%
$500 734 29.47%
$1000 515 20.67%
$1500 102 4.09%
$2000 207 8.31%
$5000 127 5.10%
$10000 50 2.01%
$Whatever it takes I'll take out a second mortgage 65 2.61%
Voters: 2491. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2401  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:16 PM
10Carrier 10Carrier is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stewdabaker23 View Post
How would Montana Leo creds be valid if you live in Cali? I have a hard time seeing how this would work and Cali would find a way to stop it. Unless you have a Montana address how would this work.
I haven't read the rest of this or formed an opinion yet, but to answer this question, each state sets standards for LEO certification. Any person who meets those standards, and who applies for certification, cannot be denied (due to Federal non-discrimination laws).

There is nothing preventing certification of someone who lives in another state, especially if they visit Montana once in a while. If I were writing this law, I would require in-person application and renewal (with instant issuance of credential), and some basic level of training including the Bounds of Authority for this new class of LEO (which might be simply "You have NO authority") and a written exam (to be given only in Montana). This would, if nothing else, be a way to bring a few tourist dollars into the state!

Thus, someone wanting this could take the training online, fly to Montana for the weekend, take the exam, file application, get photo shot and credential issued on the spot. This would put up a money hurdle (airfare, lodging and food) on top of the state fees. An additional fee could apply to the online training course.
Reply With Quote
  #2402  
Old 09-30-2012, 12:38 PM
10Carrier 10Carrier is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
Stoner is correct. Retired officers must qualify annually either with the agency they retired from, or in their state of residence.
Nope. Read it again.

". . .that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm;"

All that is necessary is that the officer or retired officer MEET THE STANDARD of the agency from which they retired OR the state where they reside, for their particular class of LEO and weapon. States determine their own qualification standards. If the Montana agency only requires "proven ability to pay annual renewal fees," that satisfies LEOSA.
Reply With Quote
  #2403  
Old 10-01-2012, 9:37 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
I haven't read the rest of this or formed an opinion yet, but to answer this question, each state sets standards for LEO certification. Any person who meets those standards, and who applies for certification, cannot be denied (due to Federal non-discrimination laws).

There is nothing preventing certification of someone who lives in another state, especially if they visit Montana once in a while. If I were writing this law, I would require in-person application and renewal (with instant issuance of credential), and some basic level of training including the Bounds of Authority for this new class of LEO (which might be simply "You have NO authority") and a written exam (to be given only in Montana). This would, if nothing else, be a way to bring a few tourist dollars into the state!

Thus, someone wanting this could take the training online, fly to Montana for the weekend, take the exam, file application, get photo shot and credential issued on the spot. This would put up a money hurdle (airfare, lodging and food) on top of the state fees. An additional fee could apply to the online training course.
Then I'm glad you are not. The fewer the hurdles, the fairer it will be for all.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Reply With Quote
  #2404  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:40 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,886
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
I haven't read the rest of this or formed an opinion yet, but to answer this question, each state sets standards for LEO certification. Any person who meets those standards, and who applies for certification, cannot be denied (due to Federal non-discrimination laws).

There is nothing preventing certification of someone who lives in another state, especially if they visit Montana once in a while. If I were writing this law, I would require in-person application and renewal (with instant issuance of credential), and some basic level of training including the Bounds of Authority for this new class of LEO (which might be simply "You have NO authority") and a written exam (to be given only in Montana). This would, if nothing else, be a way to bring a few tourist dollars into the state!

Thus, someone wanting this could take the training online, fly to Montana for the weekend, take the exam, file application, get photo shot and credential issued on the spot. This would put up a money hurdle (airfare, lodging and food) on top of the state fees. An additional fee could apply to the online training course.
My guess is the bill is already written and just waiting on the next session to begin.
__________________
Check out the new and exciting twin stick shooter Omega Reaction on Steam!

http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520
Reply With Quote
  #2405  
Old 10-01-2012, 5:25 PM
10Carrier 10Carrier is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock22Fan View Post
Then I'm glad you are not. The fewer the hurdles, the fairer it will be for all.
Without a few simple hurdles, it will be easy for states such as the People's Republic to declare the credential worthless.

The preferred situation is Constitutional Carry, not finding new methods of legitimizing "Mother May I" schemes.
Reply With Quote
  #2406  
Old 10-01-2012, 5:34 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,886
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
Without a few simple hurdles, it will be easy for states such as the People's Republic to declare the credential worthless.

The preferred situation is Constitutional Carry, not finding new methods of legitimizing "Mother May I" schemes.
Federal law trumps state determinations, and good luck on that 2nd part in CA. Have any other fantasies you'd like to discuss?
__________________
Check out the new and exciting twin stick shooter Omega Reaction on Steam!

http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520
Reply With Quote
  #2407  
Old 10-01-2012, 5:47 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,600
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
Without a few simple hurdles, it will be easy for states such as the People's Republic to declare the credential worthless.

The preferred situation is Constitutional Carry, not finding new methods of legitimizing "Mother May I" schemes.
California can not and doesn't have the authority to declare another states LEO credential worthless. So you think some 18 year old PD Officer who is the son of a Police Chief, who never passed a CA POST can have his LEOSA rights denied to him?

I have met some extremely uneducated LEO from small towns in several states....we are talking over the top hillbilly didnt finish high school and joined the PD at 18. Even this LEO's credential CAN NOT BE DISCOUNTED in other States.
Reply With Quote
  #2408  
Old 10-01-2012, 5:58 PM
MikeR's Avatar
MikeR MikeR is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SoKal
Posts: 2,588
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Default

Love this thread.

Its goes hard and fast from both sides ...dies for awhile, then right back at it.

This is one hell of a "scheme" with the parties involved.
__________________
http://i451.photobucket.com/albums/qq234/MRibz/Firearms/CPARA-1.jpg

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."~Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #2409  
Old 10-01-2012, 6:04 PM
dave_cg dave_cg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sunnyvale
Posts: 286
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
My guess is the bill is already written and just waiting on the next session to begin.
Hmmm... well, since the organizer's web site hasn't been updated in quite a while, and I don't see this bill listed at all on the calendar for the next session of the MT legislature, and I haven't heard mention of a sponsor in the MT legislature, *my* guess is somewhat different.
__________________
== The price of freedom is eternal litigation. ==
Reply With Quote
  #2410  
Old 10-01-2012, 7:36 PM
CrysisMonkey's Avatar
CrysisMonkey CrysisMonkey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Roseville
Posts: 130
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Can't wait for this to go through.
Reply With Quote
  #2411  
Old 10-01-2012, 7:41 PM
10Carrier 10Carrier is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselpower View Post
California can not and doesn't have the authority to declare another states LEO credential worthless.
No, but they CAN make a lot of noise about "credential mills," and a training requirement and in-person application would go a long way to counter that.

Personally, I think it's an interesting idea, and would like to see how it plays out, but would not want to be the test case.
Reply With Quote
  #2412  
Old 10-01-2012, 7:51 PM
10Carrier 10Carrier is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 12
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
good luck on that 2nd part in CA. Have any other fantasies you'd like to discuss?
In Arizona, there was no CCW for non-cops, PERIOD.

One guy started an initiative petition drive for Constitutional Carry. A couple of months later, the Legislature passed a CCW permit law, and in less than 20 years had Constitutional Carry.

Consider this food for thought . . .
Reply With Quote
  #2413  
Old 10-01-2012, 8:18 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 16,886
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
In Arizona, there was no CCW for non-cops, PERIOD.

One guy started an initiative petition drive for Constitutional Carry. A couple of months later, the Legislature passed a CCW permit law, and in less than 20 years had Constitutional Carry.

Consider this food for thought . . .
If you think the electorate in California is at all similar to Arizona, I don't know what to say.....
__________________
Check out the new and exciting twin stick shooter Omega Reaction on Steam!

http://store.steampowered.com/app/516520
Reply With Quote
  #2414  
Old 10-01-2012, 8:35 PM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
The preferred situation is Constitutional Carry, not finding new methods of legitimizing "Mother May I" schemes.
I agree, but what are you supposed to do in the meantime?
Reply With Quote
  #2415  
Old 10-01-2012, 9:02 PM
Powerkraut's Avatar
Powerkraut Powerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 367
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselpower View Post
California can not and doesn't have the authority to declare another states LEO credential worthless. So you think some 18 year old PD Officer who is the son of a Police Chief, who never passed a CA POST can have his LEOSA rights denied to him?

I have met some extremely uneducated LEO from small towns in several states....we are talking over the top hillbilly didnt finish high school and joined the PD at 18. Even this LEO's credential CAN NOT BE DISCOUNTED in other States.
While I agree with this, there is a pretty clear distinction between a few guys from some podunk town and a department with membership that will likely number in the thousands that was created with the sole intention of giving out nationally recognized CCLs.

I hope whoever is drafting this is also thinking ahead on how it will be rationalized (outside of strict legal definitions). I can already hear the chorus of "that's not what the law intended".
Reply With Quote
  #2416  
Old 10-01-2012, 9:55 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,600
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerkraut View Post
While I agree with this, there is a pretty clear distinction between a few guys from some podunk town and a department with membership that will likely number in the thousands that was created with the sole intention of giving out nationally recognized CCLs.

I hope whoever is drafting this is also thinking ahead on how it will be rationalized (outside of strict legal definitions). I can already hear the chorus of "that's not what the law intended".
what gets me is that only people from gun-grabber states like ours will think of this as a "loophole". The position is a REAL LEO POSITION. Just because it doesn't involve joining an academy, running 50 miles a day, and singing military marching songs, doesn't negate that its a real position. Its no less of a position then Frank hiring his son... or son-in-law to make sure his daughter has food on the table.

The MAJORITY of people who want this are trained just as well as most police whether you like that fact or not. They have a desire to protect themselves and others. they have a sense of duty and honor. They will be just as reliable as any Police Officer on the street RIGHT NOW.

Will there be bad apples...you bet. Are there Police out there right now who are bad apples...you bet... Here's 4 minutes that will make you laugh...Jump to 3:50 to skip the BS... DELETED VIDEO,,,FORGOT THE OFFICER DROPS ABOUT 10 F BOMBS... SEARCH YOUTUBE "COP GOES INSANE ON DRIVER"

Last edited by dieselpower; 10-01-2012 at 9:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2417  
Old 10-01-2012, 11:12 PM
Powerkraut's Avatar
Powerkraut Powerkraut is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 367
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Diesel, I'm not knocking the idea, in fact I like it, I'm just trying to look at this from a judge's perspective: "Please explain to me what your officer's duties are, and how they can accomplish them when they live thousands of miles away". I think that this is a valid question seeing as the 2A clearly state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet plenty of legislation that infringes on this right is ruled constitutional. Clear phrasing in law is not a guarentee for interpretation and we should be prepared for this possibility.
Reply With Quote
  #2418  
Old 10-04-2012, 9:42 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

this is, most simply described, as a reserve officer's position. and the way LEOSA is written, there is no requirement that you be in your jurisdiction to carry.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2419  
Old 10-04-2012, 10:30 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,600
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Powerkraut View Post
Diesel, I'm not knocking the idea, in fact I like it, I'm just trying to look at this from a judge's perspective: "Please explain to me what your officer's duties are, and how they can accomplish them when they live thousands of miles away". I think that this is a valid question seeing as the 2A clearly state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" yet plenty of legislation that infringes on this right is ruled constitutional. Clear phrasing in law is not a guarentee for interpretation and we should be prepared for this possibility.
you are missing the whole point of LEOSA...you need to read the whole thread. This has been gone over before. Simply put... a State can NOT and does not have the authority to question the requirements of another states LEO under federal law.... Its like saying your drivers license isn't valid because you didn't parallel park in order to get it.
Reply With Quote
  #2420  
Old 11-10-2012, 3:01 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just checking for any updates here?

Thought I would post this for future reference: Montana Legislature
Reply With Quote
  #2421  
Old 11-10-2012, 11:05 AM
Buckeye Dan's Avatar
Buckeye Dan Buckeye Dan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This question isn't about the concealed carry portion of the credentials and may be buried in this thread somewhere...

In the event there is a new assault weapons ban...Would a credential such as this create some exception? Maybe that depends on individual state laws and how the AWB would be written? Any thoughts?
__________________
Proud Member of the NRA, Crossbow Nation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Ohio Freedom Alliance

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #2422  
Old 11-10-2012, 4:24 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

been thought of earlier in thread... thoughts/consensus was it would provide some exceptions, not including full-auto.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2423  
Old 11-10-2012, 5:29 PM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 634
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Less than two months away....

The 63rd session of the Montana Legislature will convene Monday, January 7, 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #2424  
Old 11-10-2012, 5:35 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Yeah, but don't get too eager.

It may take a month or two before this issue is actually up for consideration. It may not pass. And if it does pass, then implementation of the program might take quite a few months. I personally doubt that you could be signed up in this program before some time in 2014.

But what might come earlier is the ability to go to Montana and buy Kalifornia legal (but non-rostered) firearms and bring them back to Kalifornia quite legally. That might not take long at all! But I'm not sure all the bugs have been worked out or that passage is assured.
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #2425  
Old 11-10-2012, 7:21 PM
Buckeye Dan's Avatar
Buckeye Dan Buckeye Dan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 107
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm not interested in the concealed carry part of this for the most part. I already have my Ohio CHL and I am also an Instructor for it. The part that interests me are all of the other exceptions that may come with such credentials.

For an example... It is illegal to own a switch blade knife in Ohio but LEO's are exempt. Full auto is not a problem either. We can own machine guns here if you comply with the federal regulations. We have no state law against them. Same goes for suppressors.

Thinking forward about an assault weapons ban however makes me interested in what these credentials would do.
__________________
Proud Member of the NRA, Crossbow Nation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Ohio Freedom Alliance

"It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government."
Thomas Paine
Reply With Quote
  #2426  
Old 11-11-2012, 12:13 AM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well... I was speaking specifically for CA.
FA may be possible in other states... dunno.
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2427  
Old 11-16-2012, 12:51 PM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 4,052
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I too like this thinking out of the box. And Think it could be done legally .. I know a town for sale.. The town of Rice... Our family has always talked about buying it and making it a speed trap / rest stop / Oasis in the desert. Never thought about the Gun side of things...
Reply With Quote
  #2428  
Old 11-17-2012, 1:07 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,042
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

The town of calguns, pop 5 LEO pop 125, 000 git r done.
Reply With Quote
  #2429  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:02 AM
Ninety's Avatar
Ninety Ninety is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: OC , AZ
Posts: 4,052
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Safest City in the Nation!!!
Reply With Quote
  #2430  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:02 AM
SimpleCountryActuary's Avatar
SimpleCountryActuary SimpleCountryActuary is offline
Not a miracle worker
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,820
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
The town of calguns, pop 5 LEO pop 125, 000 git r done.
Smile of the Week!
__________________
"The most hated initials in America today ... TSA."

Said by yours truly to an audience of nodding IRS employees.
Reply With Quote
  #2431  
Old 11-17-2012, 11:27 AM
avneet's Avatar
avneet avneet is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 240
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mag360 View Post
The town of calguns, pop 5 LEO pop 125, 000 git r done.
Haha love this!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #2432  
Old 11-17-2012, 6:48 PM
Stoner Stoner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fremont
Posts: 175
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10Carrier View Post
Nope. Read it again.

". . .that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm;"

All that is necessary is that the officer or retired officer MEET THE STANDARD of the agency from which they retired OR the state where they reside, for their particular class of LEO and weapon. States determine their own qualification standards. If the Montana agency only requires "proven ability to pay annual renewal fees," that satisfies LEOSA.

So your thought is Montana is going to give you the authority to carry an gun, and not make you qualify with it on some type of regular bases. Do you really think the Montana Legislature is that stupid!!! I can understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it seams you want the authority without the responsibility. I think I called it in about the first dozen or so pages of this thread. But time will tell.
Reply With Quote
  #2433  
Old 11-17-2012, 6:58 PM
aklover_91 aklover_91 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 809
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner View Post
So your thought is Montana is going to give you the authority to carry an gun, and not make you qualify with it on some type of regular bases. Do you really think the Montana Legislature is that stupid!!! I can understand what you are trying to accomplish, but it seams you want the authority without the responsibility. I think I called it in about the first dozen or so pages of this thread. But time will tell.
What authority? I seem to remember the authority being limited to something along the lines of 'Has power to arrest while supervised by full officer while in Montana on the last day in February during a leap year during a declared state of emergency during a natural disaster.' to satisfy certain bits of LEOSA.

A mail in qualification target sent in with renewal fees is about as much as most places require for LTC, which is more or less what this is set up to be.
Reply With Quote
  #2434  
Old 11-17-2012, 7:00 PM
Casual_Shooter's Avatar
Casual_Shooter Casual_Shooter is offline
Ban Hammer Avoidance Team
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Did you notice how far over I've moved this part of my info? You should try it, it's fun.
Posts: 9,449
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner View Post
but it seams you want the authority without the responsibility.
What authority are you referring to?
__________________
Guns, dogs and home alarms. Opponents are all of a sudden advocates once their personal space is violated.

"Those who cannot remember the posts are condemned to repeat them"

I wish I had a dollar for every time someone used a cliché
Reply With Quote
  #2435  
Old 11-17-2012, 7:26 PM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,042
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Dont feed the unknowledgeable. Let him re-read all 61 pages of posts until it sinks in that what Montana is doing is nothing more than what this country guaranteed to its citizens 236 years ago. They are saving peoples lives.
Reply With Quote
  #2436  
Old 11-17-2012, 7:48 PM
OleCuss OleCuss is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 6,283
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

No offense to Stoner, but he/she doesn't get what is going on.

And actually, passage is not assured. So this venture may prove to be a bust in Montana and it may be that another venue must be tried - or this one re-tried in two years.

Understand, we are talking about starting a whole new bureaucracy and a profit is not assured. So it could be very reasonable for the Montana legislature to say that they really don't want to mess with hiring the staff, setting up administrative space, and messing with lawsuits brought by Eric Holder or his follow-on.

So who knows? But if it happens it'll be slick!
__________________
CGN's token life-long teetotaling vegetarian. Not qualified to give any legal opinion so pay attention at your own risk.
Reply With Quote
  #2437  
Old 11-17-2012, 8:37 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 10,502
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoner View Post
So your thought is Montana is going to give you the authority to carry an gun, and not make you qualify with it on some type of regular bases.
Authority comes from the "keep and bear arms...", too bad some states are trying to circumvent the Constitution.

Otherwise, this would be no different than carrying within a shall issue state using a license issued by that state. If any legitimate person in MT is good enough to carry, why wouldn't an equivalent person from CA be good enough? Seems like proper equality to me.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #2438  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:03 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,267
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

I have no problem with people having to qualify. What's the big deal? Anyone who carries should be able to qualify. I carry, and would have no issue with it.

Funny how it's ok to buy Leo credentials but all of the sudden it's not ok to make someone be able to hit a paper target from 10'.

Last edited by skyscraper; 11-17-2012 at 9:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2439  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:15 PM
tabrisnet tabrisnet is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Detroit, formerly Mountain View CA
Posts: 529
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

As best I understand it, it's rarely about "having to qualify" but rather about "what will qualifying entail"
__________________
Life SAF Member
Life GOA Member
EFF Member
x7
Reply With Quote
  #2440  
Old 11-17-2012, 9:28 PM
Meplat1's Avatar
Meplat1 Meplat1 is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 202
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stix213 View Post
Federal law trumps state determinations, and good luck on that 2nd part in CA. Have any other fantasies you'd like to discuss?


Be kind, I think he may have BGOS.
__________________
May all your enemies be on full-auto
Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:24 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.