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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-27-2017, 2:41 PM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default 2017 S. 446, Cornyn: Competing National Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Senate

Per the NRA website:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...l-in-us-senate

The bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state where they are present, including certain places off-limits to firearms and laws governing the defensive use of force. It merely allows out-of-state permittees to concealed carry the same way in-state residents already do.

I can't track down the text of the bill as of yet, but it doesn't seem like it will do what HB 38 would in allowing Ca residents to CCW in CA with a out of state CCW licence.

Could be bad news for us, because the NRA is backing the Senate bill.

S. 446, The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (TX).

-Cee
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-27-2017, 2:47 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
Per the NRA website:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...l-in-us-senate

The bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state where they are present, including certain places off-limits to firearms and laws governing the defensive use of force. It merely allows out-of-state permittees to concealed carry the same way in-state residents already do.

I can't track down the text of the bill as of yet, but it doesn't seem like it will do what HB 38 would in allowing Ca residents to CCW in CA with a out of state CCW licence.

Could be bad news for us, because the NRA is backing the Senate bill.

S. 446, The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (TX).

-Cee
Pretty sure they're also backing the House version. But from the article it definitely doesn't look good for those who can't get a permit in their home state.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-27-2017, 3:02 PM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Assuming the bills from Cornyn is the same as he submitted last year, we will have a problem. It's his "Home State" language that I believe will prohibit CA residents from using a non-resident CCW licence.

These were last years CCW Reciprocity bills:

S. 498 – Introduced by U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), this legislation would respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. This bill currently has 32 cosponsors. Please contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 498.

H.R. 923 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.), this legislation is the House companion bill to S. 498. The legislation would also respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. This bill currently has 36 cosponsors. Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 923.

H.R. 986 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. This bill would also provide legal protection for law-abiding concealed carry permit holders against states that violate the intent of this bill. This bill currently has 183 cosponsors. Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 986.

H.R. 402 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry. The bill currently has 93 cosponsors. Please contact your U.S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 and ask him or her to cosponsor and support H.R. 402.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-27-2017, 8:14 PM
Noranjen Noranjen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 83
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Yeah I don't get why the NRA wouldn't be all over this and support the house bill or add language for non-resident ccw
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-28-2017, 7:52 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Just looked online and the "shell" of S.446 (115th Congress) has been uploaded. Currently no text, summary or other info, although there are ALREADY 30 co-sponsors.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...y%22%5D%7D&r=3
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-28-2017, 8:22 AM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 5,002
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

This bill needs to go down. Hope it fails.

We want 986 from last year.
__________________
NRA Life Member



Mr. President, I can't take any more winning! Make it stop Mr. President. The winning is YUGGEEEE!

"If you've got a problem with the US, you better make sure it's not a military problem." SSgt Leslie Edwards
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-28-2017, 10:23 AM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

From Cornyn's website press release issued Febnruary 27, 2017:

https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/conten...ciprocity-bill

"WASHINGTON – Today U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, legislation to allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state that also has concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws."

I called ((202) 224-2934) Cornyn's DC office at 1 PM their time and in multiple attempts was not connected to "speak to a staff member" and instead had to leave a message pleading for language that would allow a non-resident permit to be valid in a "no issue" state for a resident of that state (aka Hawaii, where the residents would remain disarmed while surrounded by armed tourists). I'll call again tomorrow, assuming everyone survived the joint session address by Trump.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-28-2017, 10:51 AM
Noranjen Noranjen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 83
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I just left him a message as well about hopefully putting non-resident ccw in his bill.

Last edited by Noranjen; 02-28-2017 at 10:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-28-2017, 10:53 AM
MotoCache1 MotoCache1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by surfgeorge View Post
I called ((202) 224-2934) Cornyn's DC office at 1 PM their time and in multiple attempts was not connected to "speak to a staff member" and instead had to leave a message pleading for language that would allow a non-resident permit to be valid in a "no issue" state for a resident of that state (aka Hawaii, where the residents would remain disarmed while surrounded by armed tourists). I'll call again tomorrow, assuming everyone survived the joint session address by Trump.
I found the full text here. I haven't compared closely to the House version but it seems the same on a cursory scan. It appears to me that your concern is already covered.

Quoting from the bill:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law
of any State or political subdivision thereof to the
contrary--
``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and a valid license or permit which
is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits
the individual to carry a concealed firearm
, may possess or
carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the
State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and
[...]
Pretty much looks like if you have any state-issued concealed weapon permit you would be entitled to carry in any state that "has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms" - which I believe is all of them at this point.

ETA: Oops, I just noticed the "in any State other than the State of residence of the individual". Sorry about that. Yeah, that's crazy - if you live in a commie-ruled state that has tight (may-issue) permit rules then you may have people from Vermont (which requires no permit) carrying in your state while you can't. Boo. Hopefully Peruta wins in SCOTUS and "may issue" goes away.

ETA2: You know, there is no comma after the word "commerce" in the phrase "carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual". You could argue that Congress is saying that the firearm has to have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual, not that they are saying that you may carry in any State other than the State of residence of the individual. Sometimes bad drafting works out our advantage?

P.S. I joined 4 years ago and this is my first post. How odd eh?

Last edited by MotoCache1; 02-28-2017 at 11:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-28-2017, 11:09 AM
Noranjen Noranjen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 83
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

We need to call to let him know about this gap in his bill..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-28-2017, 11:11 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
I found the full text here. I haven't compared closely to the House version but it seems the same on a cursory scan. It appears to me that your concern is already covered.

Quoting from the bill:
``Sec. 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain
concealed firearms

``(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any provision of the law
of any State or political subdivision thereof to the
contrary--
``(1) an individual who is not prohibited by Federal law
from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a
firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic
identification document and a valid license or permit which
is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits
the individual to carry a concealed firearm
, may possess or
carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or
destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the
State of residence of the individual that--
``(A) has a statute that allows residents of the State to
obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
``(B) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms
by residents of the State for lawful purposes; and
[...]
Pretty much looks like if you have any state-issued concealed weapon permit you would be entitled to carry in any state that "has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms" - which I believe is all of them at this point.

ETA: Oops, I just noticed the "in any State other than the State of residence of the individual". Sorry about that. Yeah, that's crazy - if you live in a commie-ruled state that has tight (may-issue) permit rules then you may have people from Vermont (which requires no permit) carrying in your state while you can't. Boo. Hopefully Peruta wins in SCOTUS and "may issue" goes away.

ETA2: You know, there is no comma after the word "commerce" in the phrase "carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual". You could argue that Congress is saying that the firearm has to have been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce in any State other than the State of residence of the individual, not that they are saying that you may carry in any State other than the State of residence of the individual. Sometimes bad drafting works out our advantage?

P.S. I joined 4 years ago and this is my first post. How odd eh?


Totally agree. This is awesome, and is a BIG change from his previous bill.

The "a State" is the key wording.

Great news!!!

EDIT: Jumped the gun and failed to read the entire bill DAMN!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by ceedubG; 02-28-2017 at 3:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-28-2017, 11:41 AM
MotoCache1 MotoCache1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noranjen View Post
We need to call to let him know about this gap in his bill..
Might not be a gap. They went out of their way to exclude carrying in your state of residence under the provisions of the act. The idea may be that when you are visiting another state you are certainly engaged in "interstate commerce", which Congress has the power to regulate under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But if you are in your own state your affect on interstate commerce may be negligible, and therefore it may be a purely intrastate issue where state law should control.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-28-2017, 11:47 AM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 5,002
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
Totally agree. This is awesome, and is a BIG change from his previous bill.

The "a State" is the key wording.

Great news!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Perhaps you didn't read the bill?

"may possess or carry a concealed handgun <snip> in any State other than the
State of residence of the individual"

In other words, if you cannot get a CCW in your state of residence, you aren't carrying in that state.
__________________
NRA Life Member



Mr. President, I can't take any more winning! Make it stop Mr. President. The winning is YUGGEEEE!

"If you've got a problem with the US, you better make sure it's not a military problem." SSgt Leslie Edwards
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-28-2017, 12:06 PM
MotoCache1 MotoCache1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaHoTex View Post
In other words, if you cannot get a CCW in your state of residence, you aren't carrying in that state.
What authority would Congress have to tell a state what it must do with regard to its own citizens carrying? Visitors are engaged in interstate commerce (where Congress has Constitutional authority), but not so much with "locals".

I think it's important to be mindful that we don't act like those we despise and push for legislation that is constitutionally infirm - even if we have the votes to do it.

You should have a right to carry in your own state without the Congress getting involved. Hopefully SCOTUS will find in Peruta's favor and you shall have your right to carry unchained. Meanwhile I'm not sure it's Congress's place to get involved in that intrastate matter. Just my two cents. Sorry if it's an unpopular sentiment.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-28-2017, 12:10 PM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MaHoTex View Post
Perhaps you didn't read the bill?

"may possess or carry a concealed handgun <snip> in any State other than the
State of residence of the individual"

In other words, if you cannot get a CCW in your state of residence, you aren't carrying in that state.
Yeah read it on my phone.... kinda missed that part.

Arghh

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last edited by ceedubG; 02-28-2017 at 3:10 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-28-2017, 12:36 PM
MaHoTex's Avatar
MaHoTex MaHoTex is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Isola di Linosa
Posts: 5,002
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
What authority would Congress have to tell a state what it must do with regard to its own citizens carrying? Visitors are engaged in interstate commerce (where Congress has Constitutional authority), but not so much with "locals".

I think it's important to be mindful that we don't act like those we despise and push for legislation that is constitutionally infirm - even if we have the votes to do it.

You should have a right to carry in your own state without the Congress getting involved. Hopefully SCOTUS will find in Peruta's favor and you shall have your right to carry unchained. Meanwhile I'm not sure it's Congress's place to get involved in that intrastate matter. Just my two cents. Sorry if it's an unpopular sentiment.
We agree.
__________________
NRA Life Member



Mr. President, I can't take any more winning! Make it stop Mr. President. The winning is YUGGEEEE!

"If you've got a problem with the US, you better make sure it's not a military problem." SSgt Leslie Edwards
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-28-2017, 1:07 PM
Strongisland Strongisland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 270
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

To be be honestt, having the home-state CC license may be better in the long run.

Given that people from other states can than carry in California, a lawsuit can be filed since those from out of state would have more rights than people that reside in the state.

Could pave the way for the courts to be forced to recognize that CC is a right, thus causing CA/NY (plus a few others) to be forced to issue CC Licenses on a shall issue basis.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-28-2017, 2:18 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
Might not be a gap. They went out of their way to exclude carrying in your state of residence under the provisions of the act. The idea may be that when you are visiting another state you are certainly engaged in "interstate commerce", which Congress has the power to regulate under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But if you are in your own state your affect on interstate commerce may be negligible, and therefore it may be a purely intrastate issue where state law should control.
I believe this is the concern with HR 38 and why this version is different. One other issue I have with it is it doesn't have "teeth" like HR38 does when states violate the act.
We don't want to have the NJs of this country continually arresting folks and dragging them through hell only to set them free when confronted and claim there was no harm done. If they're forced to shell out $$ each time the crap will stop.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-28-2017, 2:20 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 3,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongisland View Post
To be be honestt, having the home-state CC license may be better in the long run.

Given that people from other states can than carry in California, a lawsuit can be filed since those from out of state would have more rights than people that reside in the state.

Could pave the way for the courts to be forced to recognize that CC is a right, thus causing CA/NY (plus a few others) to be forced to issue CC Licenses on a shall issue basis.
I always have to ask who gets sued in this scenario? CA will say they never wanted it and are just following the law, the Feds will say it's a CA issue?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-28-2017, 3:33 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
I always have to ask who gets sued in this scenario? CA will say they never wanted it and are just following the law, the Feds will say it's a CA issue?
The federal and CA governments can bothed be sued in this scenario, the federal government for giving more rights to some citizens than others violating the equal protection clause, and CA can be sued for essentially the same argument as in Peruta, Americans who come from out of state have the right to carry in California but California's scheme limits the 2nd amendment rights of its own citizens.

Either way, this Cornyn bill is garbage, it rubber stamps blue states rights to abolish the 2nd amendment where and when it is convenient and leaves us, the state with the most gun owners in the country, to slowly be regulated and priced out of our right to keep and bear arms. Hudson reciprocity or bust.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-28-2017, 3:58 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
The federal and CA governments can bothed be sued in this scenario, the federal government for giving more rights to some citizens than others violating the equal protection clause, and CA can be sued for essentially the same argument as in Peruta, Americans who come from out of state have the right to carry in California but California's scheme limits the 2nd amendment rights of its own citizens.

Either way, this Cornyn bill is garbage, it rubber stamps blue states rights to abolish the 2nd amendment where and when it is convenient and leaves us, the state with the most gun owners in the country, to slowly be regulated and priced out of our right to keep and bear arms. Hudson reciprocity or bust.
I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-28-2017, 4:40 PM
MotoCache1 MotoCache1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

One of the bills I read was much better in that it excluded persons carrying under the act from the provisions of the Federal GFSZA (something that is a problem when carrying under state reciprocity today), and it also specifically stated that the firearm consisted of the handgun, the magazine (if applicable), and the ammunition. Hence we wouldn't be troubled with magazine capacity bans or issues about hollowpoint ammo in NJ.

This bill could definitely use some improvement.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-01-2017, 8:20 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
What authority would Congress have to tell a state what it must do with regard to its own citizens carrying? Visitors are engaged in interstate commerce (where Congress has Constitutional authority), but not so much with "locals".

I think it's important to be mindful that we don't act like those we despise and push for legislation that is constitutionally infirm - even if we have the votes to do it.

You should have a right to carry in your own state without the Congress getting involved. Hopefully SCOTUS will find in Peruta's favor and you shall have your right to carry unchained. Meanwhile I'm not sure it's Congress's place to get involved in that intrastate matter. Just my two cents. Sorry if it's an unpopular sentiment.


This is very succinct, and seems like the right analysis.

Probably the bet chance to get some democrat senators onboard to pass national reciprocity.

Won't help us in non issue Ca counties like Alameda or SF.

Uhgggg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-01-2017, 2:28 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,235
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
Assuming the bills from Cornyn is the same as he submitted last year, we will have a problem. It's his "Home State" language that I believe will prohibit CA residents from using a non-resident CCW licence.

These were last years CCW Reciprocity bills:

S. 498 – to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 923 – The legislation would also respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 986 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 402 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.
All of those bills suffer from the same infirmities as H.R. 38, either a) residence requirement, or b) does not allow the CCL holder to be safe in another state that regulates carry.

These are toothless bills.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-01-2017, 3:06 PM
Strongisland Strongisland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 270
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
All of those bills suffer from the same infirmities as H.R. 38, either a) residence requirement, or b) does not allow the CCL holder to be safe in another state that regulates carry.

These are toothless bills.
Every state regulates concealed carry when it comes to getting a license to carry...just the degree of dificultness of obtaining that license is what varies.

Because of SCOTUS, every state allows concealed carry (in theory)

Last edited by Strongisland; 03-01-2017 at 4:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-01-2017, 3:21 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bottom line: This bill has always been the cowards way out, and continues to be such.

The NRA is happy to take my California money but is dropping the ball on this one. To hear the NRA describe it to me as a member, it is ONLY for residents of a state carrying in another state and does NOT cover out of state permits. Period.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-01-2017, 4:05 PM
BennyAdeline's Avatar
BennyAdeline BennyAdeline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,427
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

I called and left my opinion, but I hope this one goes away. Non resident permit allowance is crucial to me.
__________________
“You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family.”

-Clint Smith
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-01-2017, 5:15 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

After several more calls to Cornyn's office ((202) 224-2934) today I finally reached a live staff member (left a recorded message yesterday) and explained how the wording of the bill as indicated in the senator's press release ("allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state") would not help us in Hawaii because no one has a CCW license and therefore no Hawaii residents would be granted reciprocity in any other states. If, however, the language was changed so that non-resident permits were recognized in all states, then 1. Hawaii residents would be able to carry in all other states, and 2. Hawaii residents would be able to lawfully bear arms outside the home in Hawaii (thus joining all the tourists who would have that right under the current language of the bill).

The staff member listened politely and said he would pass along my request.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-01-2017, 11:51 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The part I don't like is having to follow the laws of the individual states while carrying. Maybe it has to be, but it can lead to avoidable problems.

For instance, in my home state of OR, I can carry in a school. I don't go there very often, but every once in a while I do. If I am out of state, that is probably a big issue, although it shouldn't be. I don't want to get zapped for that.

Or, if I travel to Chicago, the laser sight on my handgun is illegal. I shouldn't have to abide by that law if I am just visiting and have a gun that is legal in my home state.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-02-2017, 5:40 AM
Oxnard_Montalvo's Avatar
Oxnard_Montalvo Oxnard_Montalvo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,061
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

And here's the expected response from the Young Pioneers (aka progressives):

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...like-it-or-not

Notice this:

"For example, stalkers, drunk drivers and abusive partners can carry a concealed weapon in some states"

When my kids used to ask if they could do something ('can I go to the store') I always made them aware of the difference between can and may ('are you asking me if you are physically able to go to the store?') and it's the same here.

Anyone CAN carry a concealed weapon, but the question here is who MAY carry one. And in this case the editorial board doesn't differentiate between people who have and have not been convicted of 'stalking, driving drunk, and domestic abuse'. If they are indeed convicted of these crimes (one wonders why drunk driving is included, but that's a discussion for another time) then these people are ALREADY prohibited by federal law of possessing firearms, therefore this law (if enacted) gives them NO legal cover whatsoever.

Y'all are going to love this one:

"It’s about the gun movement’s relentless effort to militarize every corner of American culture and civic life -- without a shred of credible evidence that it makes Americans safe."

This reminds me of another quote 'not a smidgen of corruption in the IRS'. It's always amazing how Young Pioneers (aka progressives) can spout this kind of propaganda, what's more disturbing is that many who read media outlets such as Bloomberg actually believe it.

And, as usual, the comments section is the best reading of the whole post.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-02-2017, 6:52 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: North Idaho (formerly Bay Area)
Posts: 1,108
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

I just read about this on Facebook and had to re-read it three times to confirm that I SHOULD be upset about this. We should ALL let John Cornyn know how unhappy we are with his bill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-02-2017, 7:57 AM
randian randian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Florida
Posts: 1,293
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongisland View Post
Given that people from other states can than carry in California, a lawsuit can be filed since those from out of state would have more rights than people that reside in the state.
Given California's politics, that would be a dangerous lawsuit. California might respond as you like, but I think it's equally as likely California does Hawaii and resolves the discrepancy by eliminating non-government carry altogether.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-02-2017, 5:08 PM
sarabellum sarabellum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,235
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongisland View Post


S. 498 – to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 923 – The legislation would also respect the rights of individuals who possess concealed carry permits from their home state, or who are not prohibited from carrying concealed in their home state, to exercise those rights in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 986 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry.

H.R. 402 – Introduced by U.S. Representative Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), this bill would allow any person with a valid carry permit or license issued by a state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that does not prohibit concealed carry


Every state regulates concealed carry when it comes to getting a license to carry...just the degree of dificultness of obtaining that license is what varies.

Because of SCOTUS, every state allows concealed carry (in theory)
Because many states regulate concealed carry and every one of those reciprocity bills contains language such as that of H.R. 38 (copied by every one of the above bills), those bills are paper weights:
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
We reviewed this matter closely, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=512

There are two redrafting options: a) insert into H.R. 38 the following language, "(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof and 18 U.S.C. §927 . . . (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section . . ." and subsection (b) "(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State and Congress shall occupy the entire field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter that—(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." or b) place the reciprocity bill in another omnibus body of law, if at all, or create a separate Chapter for it in the United States Code, e.g. Chapter 98 Interstate Personal Safety in the Stream of Commerce and Transportation Act.

Since the Congress in all of those clone bills proposes to exercise its commerce clause power, it can occupy the entire field of interstate transport of firearms by concealed carry permit holders. Without complete express and field preemption, the bills are idle exercises as the states can merely enact strict controls or outright prohibition of CCL, thereby triggering the limiting language of "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that . . ."
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-02-2017, 8:20 PM
Strongisland Strongisland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 270
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sarabellum View Post
Because many states regulate concealed carry and every one of those reciprocity bills contains language such as that of H.R. 38 (copied by every one of the above bills), those bills are paper weights:
“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
We reviewed this matter closely, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...&postcount=512

There are two redrafting options: a) insert into H.R. 38 the following language, "(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof and 18 U.S.C. §927 . . . (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section . . ." and subsection (b) "(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State and Congress shall occupy the entire field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter that—(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park." or b) place the reciprocity bill in another omnibus body of law, if at all, or create a separate Chapter for it in the United States Code, e.g. Chapter 98 Interstate Personal Safety in the Stream of Commerce and Transportation Act.

Since the Congress in all of those clone bills proposes to exercise its commerce clause power, it can occupy the entire field of interstate transport of firearms by concealed carry permit holders. Without complete express and field preemption, the bills are idle exercises as the states can merely enact strict controls or outright prohibition of CCL, thereby triggering the limiting language of "(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or “(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes. “(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that . . ."
"as the states can merely enact strict controls or outright prohibition of CCL".

That would be in violation of heller. Every state HAS to offer a concealed carry license. It's the hurdles you have to jump through in each state to get it that vary. So every state has CC by law...in theory.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-02-2017, 8:47 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
Might not be a gap. They went out of their way to exclude carrying in your state of residence under the provisions of the act. The idea may be that when you are visiting another state you are certainly engaged in "interstate commerce", which Congress has the power to regulate under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But if you are in your own state your affect on interstate commerce may be negligible, and therefore it may be a purely intrastate issue where state law should control.
^^This, Sort of, I believe they are talking about "firearms" shipped in a state other then your home state. So if firearms are shipped into the state by an out of state manufacture or are shipped by an instate manufacture to an out of state warehouser and back to the local dealer it would be Interstate Commerce thereby under the control of Federal law.

Fed's need to establish they are addressing Interstate Commerce to get beyond states rights.
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-02-2017, 9:06 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongisland View Post
"as the states can merely enact strict controls or outright prohibition of CCL".

That would be in violation of heller. Every state HAS to offer a concealed carry license. It's the hurdles you have to jump through in each state to get it that vary. So every state has CC by law...in theory.
As drafted, section (b) of HR38 swallows the effect of section (a) because "government property" includes "public property" (e.g., streets, sidewalks, etc.). More importantly, any hostile court will decide that such is the case even if the usual use of the term "government property" wouldn't include that. And section (b) says that section (a) does not apply against the state laws in question, so it really does come down to how "government property" is interpreted.

Put another way, section (a) says that the law overrides state law, and then section (b) says that it doesn't. Section (b) wins since, like Amendments to the Constitution, it comes later. It would win in a hostile court even if the ordering weren't normally interpreted that way since a hostile court will "interpret" things to suit its own agenda.

As such, on that basis alone, HR38 would be blown out of the water by a hostile court.

But additionally, and this is something I wasn't aware of until sarabellum raised it, section 927 of Chapter 18 also can render HR38 null, for it says:

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 927
No provision of this chapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of any State on the same subject matter, unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the law of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together.
Since "unless there is a direct and positive conflict between such provision and the low of the State so that the two cannot be reconciled or consistently stand together" is a matter of interpretation, that leaves HR38 wide open to destruction by "interpretation" by a hostile court.

No, you guys should have figured out by now that there cannot be any ambiguity in a protective law such as this. There can be nothing left unspecified, nothing overlooked, and most certainly nothing left in place that can possibly be legitimately interpreted as meaning something other than what we intend. Have we learned nothing from FOPA???

Either we fix HR38 and S.446 so that it has the same strength as, say, the current incarnation of the American Disabilities Act, or we watch it be shredded to pieces by hostile courts.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 03-02-2017 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-02-2017, 9:27 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any bill that leaves anything up to the individual states will be a wast of time and won’t help at least not for long.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-02-2017, 10:03 PM
CurlyDave CurlyDave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 252
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotoCache1 View Post
Might not be a gap. They went out of their way to exclude carrying in your state of residence under the provisions of the act. The idea may be that when you are visiting another state you are certainly engaged in "interstate commerce", which Congress has the power to regulate under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. But if you are in your own state your affect on interstate commerce may be negligible, and therefore it may be a purely intrastate issue where state law should control.
Silly me. And here I always thought that precedent in Wickard v. Filburn demonstrated that interstate commerce was anything congress says it is.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-02-2017, 11:13 PM
Tiberius's Avatar
Tiberius Tiberius is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Aside from the legalities and the problems discussed above, if some form of these bills pass, it may be to the benefit of gun owners. Eventually, it's got to bug people in LA, SF, and wherever that any yokel from Ohio or Florida or Oregon or Nevada can carry in LA, SF, or wherever, but they can't.

This would highlight how differently some states treat this issue, vs certain California counties. It might create more popular support for CCW and gun rights, among a population sector that largely doesn't pay attention.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:26 AM
Noranjen Noranjen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 83
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Just spoke to someone in the senators office. Once I started to voice my concerns about his bill and how it was constructed and that I was in California she told me to call my Representative here and hung up.
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 5:59 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy