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 01-10-2019, 3:10 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,148
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default S 69, Cornyn - concealed carry reciprocity 2019

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...%5D%7D&s=1&r=5 ,no text yet

See also https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...ciprocity-act/ and https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/conten...ciprocity-bill
Quote:
WASHINGTON –U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This legislation will allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws, while abiding by that state’s laws.

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections– the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” said Sen. Cornyn. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

The legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Mike Braun (R-IN), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Steve Daines (R-MT), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), John Hoeven (R-ND), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Ron Johnson (R-WI), John Kennedy (R-LA), Jerry Moran (R-KS), David Perdue (R-GA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

Background on the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act:

Protecting Fundamental Constitutional Rights:

Allows law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to self-defense while they are traveling or temporarily living away from home.
Allows individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to conceal carry in any other states that also allow concealed carry.
Treats state-issued concealed carry permits like drivers’ licenses where an individual can use their home-state license to drive in another state, but must abide by that other state’s speed limit or road laws.

Respecting State Sovereignty:

Does not establish national standards for concealed carry.
Does not provide for a national concealed carry permit.
Does not allow a resident to circumvent their home state’s concealed carry permit laws. If under current law an individual is prohibited by federal law from carrying a firearm, they will continue to be prohibited from doing so under our bill.
Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
Protects states’ rights by not mandating the right to concealed carry in places that do not allow the practice.

Broad Support:

Last Congress, identical legislation had 40 cosponsors. In the 113th Congress, a nearly identical amendment received 57 votes in the Senate, including 13 Democrats.
Press release, so no copyright issue.

And, similar to DiFi's AW ban not making it through the Senate, this almost certainly cannot pass the current House.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-10-2019, 5:59 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,243
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Given the timing, does one suspect a "national reciprocity for UBC" could brew? I'd be a no on the deal, and wonder if it's genuinely offered or used as a poison pill bargaining chip to the other side. We know the anti-gun version of compromise is one sided, does this allow us to appear malleable and them greedy?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-10-2019, 11:32 PM
Mark49's Avatar
Mark49 Mark49 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Very So California
Posts: 826
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Great news, lets hope this goes forward. No more multi-state CCWs. I have to get a second to carry my out of state permits LOL

Come on senate, lets make this happen!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-11-2019, 12:29 AM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,032
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Great to see that the issue of national carry is not completely dead. But, IMHO this cannot pass the House, given all of the Dem. opposition to Trump and anything pro 2A. I would love to see something like this pass so that I could continue to carry in CA after I move to ID. But, this may be irrelevant if I never return. However, it would be good for others.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-11-2019, 2:04 AM
Mark49's Avatar
Mark49 Mark49 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Very So California
Posts: 826
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

It passed the house what last year. Educate me, does it have to go back to the house? If so this measure is toast!!!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-11-2019, 8:28 AM
Robotron2k84's Avatar
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 922
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Hudson's House-originated H.R.38 was what passed the House in the last session, which included non-res. reciprocity in CCW-unfriendly states. Cornyn's S.446 last session was originated, but never voted on in the Senate. It's this bill that has been resurrected, not the more important Hudson bill.

While reciprocity will help some carry in CA, Cornyn's bill does not go far enough to punish regressive states by taking away their abilities to declare gun-free zones and magazine limitations.

In either case, this is simply a gambit to counter the AWB and background checks bill. None of the above will pass this session.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:16 AM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,148
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark49 View Post
It passed the house what last year. Educate me, does it have to go back to the house? If so this measure is toast!!!
Everything from last year - The 2017-2018 115th Congress - that did not pass is now permanently dead; measures must be reintroduced in the current,116th, Congressional session.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-11-2019, 10:45 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 887
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

The way I read this one was that you must have a CCW in your home state, so CA residents with non-resident AZ or UT or other states would still not be able to carry in CA, even if this does pass (which it won’t).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:24 AM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 157
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'd like to point out that as far as Calif is concerned, this will do nothing to legitimize out of state permits...because in Ca, the permit MUST list the name and serial number of the firearm carried...Most states do not require this... Correct me if I am wrong...

Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-11-2019, 11:26 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,717
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
I'd like to point out that as far as Calif is concerned, this will do nothing to legitimize out of state permits...because in Ca, the permit MUST list the name and serial number of the firearm carried...Most states do not require this... Correct me if I am wrong...

Respects state laws concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried and types of firearms which may not be carried by the visiting individual.

Won't pass the house anyway so doesn't matter.
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg

Voting "Yes" on a California bond measure is like giving a degenerate gambler more money because he says he has the game figured out....

John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01-11-2019, 4:50 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,219
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This thing is as dead as FeinSteins 2019 AWB.
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01-12-2019, 11:48 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,324
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

All the GOP controlled Senate had to do last year was to pass this bill, then it and the GOP controlled House version would go to reconciliation where they'd agree to the House version and then it gets sent back to both chambers for pro forma vote and then on to Trump's desk and a Christmas present for us all, even if not perfect. But instead we got a lump of coal (nothing).

My guess is they didn't want it to get passed so votes against it this year and/or next year could be used against the Dems in 2020. But that's just
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 02-10-2019 at 8:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-14-2019, 11:02 PM
silvrwrx21 silvrwrx21 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If this were to pass, would an out of state permit be usable for those of us who have the Utah non-resident permit but can’t get a permit in their home county? (Los Angeles County)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01-15-2019, 9:35 AM
Jimi Jah's Avatar
Jimi Jah Jimi Jah is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: North San Diego County
Posts: 13,993
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Red meat for the base. It is not intended to pass but get you to the polls in 2020.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-07-2019, 7:10 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Red meat for the base. It is not intended to pass but get you to the polls in 2020.
I think you are correct and if it did pass nothing would be accomplished unless something is done first to stop states from simply ignoring the law.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-07-2019, 8:30 PM
MisterX9 MisterX9 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Filibuster.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-08-2019, 3:19 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,508
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvrwrx21 View Post
If this were to pass, would an out of state permit be usable for those of us who have the Utah non-resident permit but can’t get a permit in their home county? (Los Angeles County)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Usable everywhere except your state of residence
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-10-2019, 8:20 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,966
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

so many of "us" are opposed to this anyway.
it really pisses me off that my little brother is a LE in NY and can carry in my home town ( but doesn't because his agency doesn't let him drink beers and carry ) and I can't.
I even quit drinking 24 yrs ago too!
hopefully this ny p and r club lawsuit about permitted people carrying out of city limits kills this bs once and for all
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-12-2019, 1:15 PM
Imperius's Avatar
Imperius Imperius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: San Jose
Posts: 157
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silvrwrx21 View Post
If this were to pass, would an out of state permit be usable for those of us who have the Utah non-resident permit but can’t get a permit in their home county? (Los Angeles County)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Nope. This changes very little for people in commie states. It's a step in the right direction but ultimately will not pass
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-07-2019, 8:47 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,324
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
01/09/2019 Introduced in Senate
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...%5D%7D&r=5&s=1



The only actions taken were it's introduction to the Senate and assignment to the Judiciary Cmte, both on 2019 Jan 09. I guess they're not spending any time and effort on it because, since the House flipped to Dem control, it will be DOA there.

Too bad the Senate Repubs didn't push it in the first 2 years of Trump's term when they did control both chambers. (It passed the House, but the Senate never acted on it.)

We'll soon find out if Mitch was right to focus on the courts, esp circuit courts of appeals and SCOTUS, instead.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 11-07-2019 at 9:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:09 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,178
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark49 View Post
Great news, lets hope this goes forward. No more multi-state CCWs. I have to get a second to carry my out of state permits LOL

Come on senate, lets make this happen!!!!
So you want to reduce State's rights even further by taking away their right to regulate CCW?


Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Understand that is a statist, progressive liberal big-government loving position.

Not the position of a Libertarian or Conservative that cherishes rights.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-07-2019, 10:14 PM
USMCmatt's Avatar
USMCmatt USMCmatt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 593
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I disagree, the Bill of Rights is pretty clear to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
So you want to reduce State's rights even further by taking away their right to regulate CCW?


Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Understand that is a statist, progressive liberal big-government loving position.

Not the position of a Libertarian or Conservative that cherishes rights.

=8-|
__________________
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. John 15:13
______________________________________
—USMC OEF Veteran—
Visit American Warrior Decals for custom vinyl decals!


Million Mag March Commemorative Decal HERE
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-08-2019, 5:05 AM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
So you want to reduce State's rights even further by taking away their right to regulate CCW?


Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Understand that is a statist, progressive liberal big-government loving position.

Not the position of a Libertarian or Conservative that cherishes rights.

=8-|
MRRabit, I think you're definition of Libertarian is a little screwy here. Libertarianism generally clings to restraining government from restricting an individual's rights. Libertarianism isn't defined as the states having the ability to restrain rights. I think your view of what it means to "cherish rights" is probably a few paces off from the norm as well.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:42 AM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 637
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apocalypsenerd View Post
MRRabit, I think you're definition of Libertarian is a little screwy here. Libertarianism generally clings to restraining government from restricting an individual's rights. Libertarianism isn't defined as the states having the ability to restrain rights. I think your view of what it means to "cherish rights" is probably a few paces off from the norm as well.
I think MrRabbit was referencing federalism. He is also correct that some prominent legal scholars associated with libertarianism (e.g., Josh Blackman, Randy Barnett) have concerns about the best way to achieve nationwide CCW. See http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/02...onstitutional/ Although I think Prof. Blackman is associated with libertarianism, I think his concerns regarding the best way to achieve nationwide CCW is based on his understanding of original intent.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-08-2019, 10:53 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,898
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Garbage bill. We need one that allows anyone with "A" ccw from "ANY" state to carry nationwide.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:43 AM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kukuforguns View Post
I think MrRabbit was referencing federalism. He is also correct that some prominent legal scholars associated with libertarianism (e.g., Josh Blackman, Randy Barnett) have concerns about the best way to achieve nationwide CCW. See http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/02...onstitutional/ Although I think Prof. Blackman is associated with libertarianism, I think his concerns regarding the best way to achieve nationwide CCW is based on his understanding of original intent.
Could be a mistake, and I understand wanting to preserve state's rights. But to equate state's ability to limit rights as libertarian is an error at best.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-08-2019, 2:07 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark49 View Post
It passed the house what last year. Educate me, does it have to go back to the house? If so this measure is toast!!!
This is a new bill. Bills die at the end of a term unless acted upon. The last one died in the Senate when it was not brought up for a vote. This one will also die in the Senate because, just like last year, there are not 60 votes to stop a filibuster and get it to the floor for an up or down vote. No need to say it, but with the way the Dems are running their Presidential campaigns, ain't no way it even gets out of committee in the House.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-08-2019, 2:12 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 705
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...%5D%7D&r=5&s=1



The only actions taken were it's introduction to the Senate and assignment to the Judiciary Cmte, both on 2019 Jan 09. I guess they're not spending any time and effort on it because, since the House flipped to Dem control, it will be DOA there.

Too bad the Senate Repubs didn't push it in the first 2 years of Trump's term when they did control both chambers. (It passed the House, but the Senate never acted on it.)

We'll soon find out if Mitch was right to focus on the courts, esp circuit courts of appeals and SCOTUS, instead.
The Senate didn't act on it since it takes 60 votes to call for cloture is a filibuster is made. The Repubs only had 51 party members, and maybe a few Dems. McConnell never called for a vote since he knew he couldn't beat a filibuster.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-08-2019, 7:52 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
So you want to reduce State's rights even further by taking away their right to regulate CCW?


Heller v. DC PDF

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf


Understand that is a statist, progressive liberal big-government loving position.

Not the position of a Libertarian or Conservative that cherishes rights.

=8-|
States rights need to be reduced a lot although in some states more than others because many states refuse to follow the law. The constitution states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so any state that infringes on a citizens right is breaking the law.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-08-2019, 8:12 PM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,178
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Wow...two posters clearly didnt read the PDF...and course the usual strawman's in play.

=8-)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-08-2019, 11:47 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,243
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
States rights need to be reduced a lot although in some states more than others because many states refuse to follow the law. The constitution states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed so any state that infringes on a citizens right is breaking the law.
It's the Bill of Rights. And the preamble to the BoR makes clear it constrained the federal government against the states. But, times change.

Like it or not (I often don't) that's what the courts are for - determining when that line is crossed. It's unfortunate some support or oppose the concept of states rights based solely on a particular issue, and most often whether they like the outcome or not, rather than on the application of a principle. Much like supporting "free speech" only when one agrees with the content.

I maintain 4 non-resident CCWs/LTC and it is a PITA. However I am not interested in opening up to federal intrusion that which is currently the purview of only the states themselves. And although the federal government may have the authority via the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause it has thus far demurred. But we should note that certain Senators, following our lead but headed to a different destination, have already proposed stringent "may issue" national standards that would obliterate about 30 "shall issue" and a dozen constitutional carry states.

Even "national reciprocity" carries risk as it allows the federal government to occupy the field of CCW issuance. It takes only a line or two to go from all states being required to honor "the public carry rights of residents of all states including those which require no permit" to the aforementioned plus "so long as that state has licensing requirements equal to its own and is approved by the US Attorney General". I'm using shorthand but I think the point is clear.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-09-2019, 2:50 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
It's the Bill of Rights. And the preamble to the BoR makes clear it constrained the federal government against the states. But, times change.

Like it or not (I often don't) that's what the courts are for - determining when that line is crossed. It's unfortunate some support or oppose the concept of states rights based solely on a particular issue, and most often whether they like the outcome or not, rather than on the application of a principle. Much like supporting "free speech" only when one agrees with the content.

I maintain 4 non-resident CCWs/LTC and it is a PITA. However I am not interested in opening up to federal intrusion that which is currently the purview of only the states themselves. And although the federal government may have the authority via the current interpretation of the Commerce Clause it has thus far demurred. But we should note that certain Senators, following our lead but headed to a different destination, have already proposed stringent "may issue" national standards that would obliterate about 30 "shall issue" and a dozen constitutional carry states.

Even "national reciprocity" carries risk as it allows the federal government to occupy the field of CCW issuance. It takes only a line or two to go from all states being required to honor "the public carry rights of residents of all states including those which require no permit" to the aforementioned plus "so long as that state has licensing requirements equal to its own and is approved by the US Attorney General". I'm using shorthand but I think the point is clear.
IMO states only have rights in areas where there is no federal regulation, if there was no 1A or 2A then it would be ok for states or local gov to make laws in those areas as they see fit. If states would all do what is right then there would be no need for the feds to intervene.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-09-2019, 9:33 AM
mrrabbit mrrabbit is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,178
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
IMO states only have rights in areas where there is no federal regulation, if there was no 1A or 2A then it would be ok for states or local gov to make laws in those areas as they see fit. If states would all do what is right then there would be no need for the feds to intervene.
R Dale

I want to to go back and read what you just posted.

Read it once...

Read it again...

And if you still can't figure out why...

Kahane, Howard, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life

Chapter 7 - Analyzing and Constructing Extended Arguments


You either are a big government liberal progressive who just loves to support the Federal Government efforts to run roughshod over the rights of citizens and the state - and puts privilege above rights . . .

OR

You don't really bother to analyze your own arguments when constructing them.

=8-|
__________________
Justice Thomas: " I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. "
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-09-2019, 9:56 AM
vintagearms's Avatar
vintagearms vintagearms is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 6,547
iTrader: 53 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Red meat for the base. It is not intended to pass but get you to the polls in 2020.
Just trying to get Trump re-elected is reason enough for me.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-09-2019, 11:01 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,528
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrabbit View Post
R Dale

I want to to go back and read what you just posted.

Read it once...

Read it again...

And if you still can't figure out why...

Kahane, Howard, Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric: The Use of Reason in Everyday Life

Chapter 7 - Analyzing and Constructing Extended Arguments


You either are a big government liberal progressive who just loves to support the Federal Government efforts to run roughshod over the rights of citizens and the state - and puts privilege above rights . . .

OR

You don't really bother to analyze your own arguments when constructing them.

=8-|
I simply support the Federal government coming to the aid of citizens when the state they live in is denying their rights. If that makes me a liberal progressive then so be it.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-10-2019, 8:58 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,243
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
IMO states only have rights in areas where there is no federal regulation, if there was no 1A or 2A then it would be ok for states or local gov to make laws in those areas as they see fit. If states would all do what is right then there would be no need for the feds to intervene.
That may be the way it is now due to federal supremacy and the 14th Amendment legal theory of "incorporation". That wasn't the intention of the authors of the Bill of Rights which, if one reads in its entirety to include the preamble, is clear.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

There is presently no federal law regulating the carrying of firearms in public by residents of their own states, nor with agreements between states regarding non-resident carry within another state. It should remain so. And based upon your opening line that states have rights only when "there is no federal regulation" it would seem that statement is at odds with inviting a "federal CCW".

Last edited by dfletcher; 11-10-2019 at 9:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-10-2019, 9:04 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,243
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I simply support the Federal government coming to the aid of citizens when the state they live in is denying their rights. If that makes me a liberal progressive then so be it.
Well, don't get upset when the federal government tells you who you must sell your home to, tells your local baker who they must make a cake for, that your kid must attend sexual orientation classes or your use of "he or she" is actionable in court.

The exercise of rights is often not clear cut. You may not like where the feds come down carving up who gets to do what.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-10-2019, 9:05 PM
Spaffo's Avatar
Spaffo Spaffo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 369
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Constitutional carry, by it's very name, should be nation-wide, just like free speech or any other "God-given" right.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-11-2019, 12:44 PM
FullMetalJacket FullMetalJacket is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 458
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

You guys couldn't make this happen when you controlled both houses? With the Dens running the House, this is an empty gesture.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-11-2019, 1:00 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,854
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FullMetalJacket View Post
You guys couldn't make this happen when you controlled both houses? With the Dens running the House, this is an empty gesture.


There were too many Rinos in the senate.
__________________
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 11:02 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.