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
  #681  
Old 06-07-2017, 7:20 PM
Trump1's Avatar
Trump1 Trump1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 257
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Propaganda is racheting up against Concealed-Carry Reciprocity.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #682  
Old 06-07-2017, 9:06 PM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,121
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheriff Beck View Post
This should be a call to action for all Californians concerned about keeping their families safe.
I completely agree Chuck, we need to get reciprocity passed asap! We need to think of the children!
Reply With Quote
  #683  
Old 06-08-2017, 2:11 PM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sacramento County, CA
Posts: 410
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Exclamation Concealed Carry Reciprocity is Approaching 200 Cosponsors!

Latest Email from Gun Owners of America

Reciprocity Legislation is Going Gangbusters in Congress, but We Need Help to Get Over the Finish Line!


Dear Friend:

I want to update you with exciting news from Capitol Hill -- and thank you for all your help in pushing gun rights this year.

You know that I have repeatedly encouraged you to contact your congressman in support of concealed carry reciprocity.

Well, we are now getting closer to achieving a historic number of cosponsors on Rep. Richard Hudson's reciprocity bill (H.R. 38).

Get this: Out of the more than 2,700 bills introduced in Congress this year, H.R. 38 is #14 in terms of most cosponsors.

The fourteenth most cosponsored bill!

Let that number sink in.

Hudson's bill is one of the most popular ones in Congress.

And that #14 ranking is even more significant when you consider that some of the higher-ranked bills are merely commemorative bills or bills dealing with cancer research.

So do you know what this means?

Despite all of Bloomberg's billions in trying to kill concealed carry reciprocity ... and despite all of the media's "fake news" attacks against gun rights ... you have helped achieve more than 190 cosponsors on Hudson's bill!!!
There are 195 to be exact.

Your tremendous action has helped catapult H.R. 38 into the 99th percentile.
Rep. Hudson thanks GOA members for their activism
See below on how you can help GET MORE cosponsors!

Rep. Richard Hudson told me, when he was discussing the tremendous number of cosponsors that were added to his bill in such a short time, that:
"A lot of that [success] has to do with grassroots organizations like Gun Owners of America pushing to get more cosponsors."

His bill is GOA's top priority. It would allow you to carry nationally if you could carry in your home state.

It would recognize constitutional carry states.

It would allow residents of anti-gun states to apply for out-of-state non-resident permits.

It would abolish safety-free zones.

It would require agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers to recognize the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

It would prohibit states from circumventing federal law by registering magazines and ammunition.

The Hudson bill is very good, and it has a LOT OF COSPONSORS on it.


In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director, GOA
Reply With Quote
  #684  
Old 06-08-2017, 2:12 PM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sacramento County, CA
Posts: 410
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Latest Email from Gun Owners of America

Reciprocity Legislation is Going Gangbusters in Congress, but We Need Help to Get Over the Finish Line!


Dear Friend:

I want to update you with exciting news from Capitol Hill -- and thank you for all your help in pushing gun rights this year.

You know that I have repeatedly encouraged you to contact your congressman in support of concealed carry reciprocity.

Well, we are now getting closer to achieving a historic number of cosponsors on Rep. Richard Hudson's reciprocity bill (H.R. 38).

Get this: Out of the more than 2,700 bills introduced in Congress this year, H.R. 38 is #14 in terms of most cosponsors.

The fourteenth most cosponsored bill!

Let that number sink in.

Hudson's bill is one of the most popular ones in Congress.

And that #14 ranking is even more significant when you consider that some of the higher-ranked bills are merely commemorative bills or bills dealing with cancer research.

So do you know what this means?

Despite all of Bloomberg's billions in trying to kill concealed carry reciprocity ... and despite all of the media's "fake news" attacks against gun rights ... you have helped achieve more than 190 cosponsors on Hudson's bill!!!
There are 195 to be exact.

Your tremendous action has helped catapult H.R. 38 into the 99th percentile.
Rep. Hudson thanks GOA members for their activism
See below on how you can help GET MORE cosponsors!

Rep. Richard Hudson told me, when he was discussing the tremendous number of cosponsors that were added to his bill in such a short time, that:
"A lot of that [success] has to do with grassroots organizations like Gun Owners of America pushing to get more cosponsors."

His bill is GOA's top priority. It would allow you to carry nationally if you could carry in your home state.

It would recognize constitutional carry states.

It would allow residents of anti-gun states to apply for out-of-state non-resident permits.

It would abolish safety-free zones.

It would require agencies like the Army Corps of Engineers to recognize the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

It would prohibit states from circumventing federal law by registering magazines and ammunition.

The Hudson bill is very good, and it has a LOT OF COSPONSORS on it.


In Liberty,
Erich Pratt
Executive Director, GOA
I just love it! It's in-your-face legislation for blue Dem-lib anti-gun states and cities like San Francisco, California.

National Reciprocal Concealed Carry Act of 2017

Under this federal law if it were to pass, and most House Republicans are for it, hopefully the Senate and Trump too, I would be able to pack a concealed handgun into California on the streets of San Francisco even, as a visitor from Idaho WITHOUT a local Idaho permit even, since I am allowed to carry on the streets of Idaho cities without a CCW as a resident, and anti-gun police chiefs in SF would have NOTHING to say about it!

Last edited by DonaldBabbett; 06-08-2017 at 2:21 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #685  
Old 06-08-2017, 2:22 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,797
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Co-sponsors in the house are great but will mean nothing without ALL of the republicans and 8 democrats in the senate to get to the floor. Forget about the co-sponsors in the house if you cannot get 8 dems in the senate.
__________________
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
  #686  
Old 06-08-2017, 2:24 PM
DonaldBabbett DonaldBabbett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Sacramento County, CA
Posts: 410
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by mshill View Post
Co-sponsors in the house are great but will mean nothing without ALL of the republicans and 8 democrats in the senate to get to the floor. Forget about the co-sponsors in the house if you cannot get 8 dems in the senate.
Don't the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate?

Cornyn has his OWN Senate version:

U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Wednesday introduced his version of interstate carry legislation, titled the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Cornyn’s bill follows an earlier release in the House by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) of the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.”

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

Last edited by DonaldBabbett; 06-08-2017 at 2:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #687  
Old 06-08-2017, 3:15 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Don't the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate?

Cornyn has his OWN Senate version:

U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) on Wednesday introduced his version of interstate carry legislation, titled the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Cornyn’s bill follows an earlier release in the House by Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) of the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.”

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2017...-in-the-senate
They do but to close off debate 60 votes are needed. With Warner's flip they likely are short.
Reply With Quote
  #688  
Old 06-08-2017, 5:14 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldBabbett View Post
Don't the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate?
60 votes are required for cloture.

Not to turn this into a President Trump thread, because he's stated he supports it, but were the President flying high in national polls and developing coat tails for local politicians to ride in their 2018 re-epection bids that could improve chances of passge for this bill. Some of those 8 Democrats in pro-gun states, who could be beaten up on by a popular President were they not to help us, now have the opportunity to dismiss him and vote the party line instead.

I'm suppose there are nuances to some of those 8 and maybe a Republican or two. But having a popular President using the "bully pulpit" (and I mean "bully" in it's original TR form not what it's become) can only help. Being without it costs us.
Reply With Quote
  #689  
Old 06-09-2017, 12:04 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump1 View Post
An interesting letter written to Representatives Richard Hudson, Justin Amash, and Trey Gowdy regarding constitutional theory and HR 38.
In that letter, they write:

Quote:
Congress has other powers that would be more appropriate. The Full Faith and Credit Clause empowers Congress to “prescribe * * * the Effect” of state acts, records, or judicial proceedings in other states. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1. For instance, the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act requires certain state child support laws to be given their full effect in every other state. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738B(h). Similarly, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act requires every state to recognize certain child custody judgments from other states, and it forbids them from exercising their ordinary jurisdiction over such disputes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

Congress has used this power only rarely, but soon after the Founding it often debated doing so.
So rather than use the well-understood (though overly powerful, as the letter outlines) interstate commerce power, the authors of the bill suggest that instead the bill should be based on a Constitutional principle that has hardly ever been used???

If it's hardly ever been used, then it means it is not legally well-defined, which means the courts will have a field day "interpreting" it as they wish.

Nope, that's not a recipe for disaster at all ...
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #690  
Old 06-09-2017, 9:11 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
In that letter, they write:



So rather than use the well-understood (though overly powerful, as the letter outlines) interstate commerce power, the authors of the bill suggest that instead the bill should be based on a Constitutional principle that has hardly ever been used???

If it's hardly ever been used, then it means it is not legally well-defined, which means the courts will have a field day "interpreting" it as they wish.

Nope, that's not a recipe for disaster at all ...
No, what could possibly go wrong from using an obscure part of the constitution that, if overturned, would only affect us, and not affect lots of other things, including liberal causes.

No, that's ridiculous! We don't need a strategy that would make democrats split because it would undermine their own priorities! Going alone and making it severable without striking down democrat prioritites makes PERFECT sense! I mean, purity before practicality, right?
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #691  
Old 06-09-2017, 12:21 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I read the attached letter and found this interesting, emphasis added:

"By stretching the limits of the Commerce Clause, the current draft unnecessarily limits the bill’s support among constitutional conservatives. (We believe that Rep. Amash, among others, has criticized prior versions of the bill on these grounds.) If Congress can confer a right to carry firearms that once crossed state lines, regardless of state law, then a future Congress could restrict the carrying of firearms that once crossed state lines, regardless of state law. Indeed, the federal government could even purport to regulate how Americans brush their teeth,
so long as their toothbrushes had previously been shipped across state
lines. (Or just the bristles, or the crude oil that was made into plastic,
or . . . . )"


Regarding "stretching the limits" of the Commerce Clause, hasn't that ship already sailed and isn't as it used in this bill a fairly modest proposal well within those already strained parameters?

Regarding the issue in bold, is this a valid concern? What the authors suggest, is that the sewer pipe can be travelled in either direction, so to speak. It just matters which end may be opened first.

Other concerns, such as whether non-res can be covered seem to me cured by proper language and clarity. But the above, as a principle and what may be done with it against us, is to my layman's ear a concern.
Reply With Quote
  #692  
Old 06-14-2017, 8:24 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I can't help but notice Steve Scalise, the House majority whip who was shot this morning by a Bernie supporter, is absent from the list of cosponsors for HR38. He was extremely fortunate to have DC police as his bodyguards.
Reply With Quote
  #693  
Old 06-14-2017, 11:47 AM
jrr jrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 561
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Going to be interesting to see what impact today's events have. Could go either way, bipartisan attack on 2A and a renewed AW ban, or full court press on national CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #694  
Old 06-14-2017, 12:00 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 7,711
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Going to be interesting to see what impact today's events have. Could go either way, bipartisan attack on 2A and a renewed AW ban, or full court press on national CCW.
I betting on more CCW. As a side note this Illinois puke had a history of violence, yet because of his democrat party leanings.Im surmising the state of Illinois gave him a pass, maybe even so he could plan the assination of a republican congressman.

Personally as a Trump supporter,Im going to www.whitehouse.gov with an email advocating Nalt CCW reciprocity .
Maybe next time some disgruntled democrat,Bernie supporter goes off there will be one person to stop the violence,with a few well placed slugs!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

Last edited by ja308; 06-14-2017 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #695  
Old 06-14-2017, 3:31 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 67
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jrr View Post
Going to be interesting to see what impact today's events have. Could go either way, bipartisan attack on 2A and a renewed AW ban, or full court press on national CCW.
"Traces are still being done on the two firearms recovered at the scene -- an SKS rifle 7.62 (which is a Chinese-made AK variant) and a 9 mm pistol, a law enforcement source tells CNN."

Ignoring the fact that an SKS is not an "AK variant." So much for the "AR15" everyone saw and heard at the shooting. Today's event may be used to push the CCW reciprocity through.

Last edited by mit31; 06-14-2017 at 3:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #696  
Old 06-14-2017, 8:02 PM
iroquois's Avatar
iroquois iroquois is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 696
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

If the Peruta case gets heard and becomes law of the land, that could change 8+ progun democrats to get on board.
Reply With Quote
  #697  
Old 06-15-2017, 8:58 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,098
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
A Republican congressman has said he will carry a gun whenever he's 'out and about' after a man critically wounded Majority Whip Steve Scalise in a shooting yesterday.

New York's Rep. Chris Collins, a strong backer of President Trump, said carrying a gun is not normal for him - but the attack in Alexandria, VA has forced him to change his mind.

<snip>

Speaking to WKBW, Collins said: 'You look at the vulnerability - I can assure you from this day forward, I have a carry permit, I will be carrying when I'm out and about.

'On a rare occasion I'd have my gun in the glove box or something, but it's going to be in my pocket from this day forward'.

He added: 'It's got all the punch you need.'

Collins - who represents New York's 27th Congressional District which is on the border with Canada and contains parts of Buffalo and Rochester - also said he would be requesting an armed police officer at all events, including small ones.
More at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...carry-gun.html

Can that NY Congressional Rep even carry in NYC with his NY CCW??? Yet he wants to be able to carry in Wash DC and VA? This may be the start of the push for Nat'l Recip. What did Rahm say?



Quote:
Lawmakers ought to be able to carry guns, Georgia congressman says

Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), a member of the GOP baseball squad who was on the scene during Wednesday morning’s shooting, said Congress should explore allowing lawmakers to carry weapons to defend themselves.

“If this had happened in Georgia, he wouldn’t have gotten too far,” Loudermilk told reporters Wednesday at the Capitol. “I had a staff member who was in his car maybe 20 yards behind the shooter, who was pinned in his car, who back in Georgia carries a 9-millimeter in his car. . . . He had a clear shot at him. But here, we’re not allowed to carry any weapons here.”

While firearms are strictly regulated on the Capitol grounds and in the rest of the District of Columbia, gun laws in Virginia — where the shooting took place — are significantly less strict. Firearms can be openly carried without a permit, and the state issues permits to carry concealed weapons. Alexandria allows the ownership and carrying of weapons, but discharging a firearm in the city is illegal.

“Most of us are here in D.C., so how do you have the gun here and just transport it to Virginia?” Loudermilk said when Virginia’s laws were pointed out. “I think we need to look at some kind of reciprocity for members here.”

Loudermilk said perhaps a larger group of lawmakers ought to receive security protection, rather than just the top leaders who have a round-the-clock Capitol Police detail.

“We’re not any more special than anybody else, but we are targets,” he said. “This is exactly why there is a lot of fear of even doing town halls at this point. Some of the things this guy is posting on Facebook — we get the same things, and even worse.”
More at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...se-member-says

We should make sure that ALL law-abiding Americans can benefit from any reciprocity bill, not just "members" of Congress.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

215+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #698  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:06 AM
FilmGuy's Avatar
FilmGuy FilmGuy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 127
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now up to 199 Cosponsors. Three added on 6/15/2017.

Follow the action here. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...rt=lastToFirst
Reply With Quote
  #699  
Old 06-16-2017, 11:30 AM
ronlglock's Avatar
ronlglock ronlglock is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,123
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmGuy View Post
Now up to 199 Cosponsors. Three added on 6/15/2017.

Follow the action here. https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...rt=lastToFirst


Bit'o'difference in political response from just a few short months ago, eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________

NRA Patron, CRPA Life, SAF Life, GSSF Life, NRA RSO and pistol instructor, ILEETA instructor. Stop me before I join something else!
Reply With Quote
  #700  
Old 06-16-2017, 3:17 PM
BCA142's Avatar
BCA142 BCA142 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Corruptifornia
Posts: 574
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Pull ALL security details for ALL Democrat's at ALL Federal, State & local levels. Then see how they feel. No body guards, no armored limo's, no home security provided at taxpayer expense.
__________________
Dec. 15, 1791
"The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed" EVER!!!!!

NRA Life Member: Patron
Calguns Supporter
Firearms Policy Coalition Supporter
Reply With Quote
  #701  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:09 AM
Baja Daze Baja Daze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Peoples Democratic Republik of Kaliforniastan
Posts: 683
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=Paladin;20238359]More at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...carry-gun.html

Can that NY Congressional Rep even carry in NYC with his NY CCW??? Yet he wants to be able to carry in Wash DC and VA? This may be the start of the push for Nat'l Recip. What did Rahm say?

Your New York State pistol license is only valid in the counties outside the 5 counties of New York City unless it is validated by New York City. You may not take your handguns into the city, this includes Self Protection licensees, with a few exceptions.

And Washington D.C. does NOT honor any permits from other states or jurisdictions. However Virginia is a "universal recognition" state and honors all other state permits, so if any of the Congressmen present at the practice on Wednesday morning in Alexandria had a permit, any permit, they would have been able to legally carry there.

Yes we need national reciprocity and NOT a version that requires a permit from state of residence!
Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 06-17-2017, 12:09 AM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,189
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCA142 View Post
Pull ALL security details for ALL Democrat's at ALL Federal, State & local levels. Then see how they feel. No body guards, no armored limo's, no home security provided at taxpayer expense.
And most importantly, no CCWs for the ones from CA, NY, or any other anti state.
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 06-17-2017, 1:45 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

[QUOTE=Baja Daze;20246599]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
More at:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...carry-gun.html

Can that NY Congressional Rep even carry in NYC with his NY CCW??? Yet he wants to be able to carry in Wash DC and VA? This may be the start of the push for Nat'l Recip. What did Rahm say?

Your New York State pistol license is only valid in the counties outside the 5 counties of New York City unless it is validated by New York City. You may not take your handguns into the city, this includes Self Protection licensees, with a few exceptions.

And Washington D.C. does NOT honor any permits from other states or jurisdictions. However Virginia is a "universal recognition" state and honors all other state permits, so if any of the Congressmen present at the practice on Wednesday morning in Alexandria had a permit, any permit, they would have been able to legally carry there.

Yes we need national reciprocity and NOT a version that requires a permit from state of residence!
I would like to see these Congresspeople from may-issue states apply for permits and see if any get rejected for lack of "good cause". I'm leaning toward NONE getting rejected.

None of the bills require a HOME state permit, technically, but the Senate bill will not override the relationship between each state and it's own residents.
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 06-19-2017, 8:45 AM
John Browning's Avatar
John Browning John Browning is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Contra Costa County
Posts: 6,875
iTrader: 70 / 100%
Default

The National Reciprocity Bill would allow them to use their permits to carry in DC, correct?

If so, the special bill they've introduced should tell us that they have no intention of passing the other bill, otherwise, why introduce it?

DC Swampers better not screw the rest of us on this. Equal under the law, right?
__________________
Securing a safe to a Post-tension slab - DIY

HK P30SK LEM for sale, S&W 27, S&W 37, Marlin Mountie - NorCal

Quote:
Originally Posted by KWalkerM View Post
eh why bring logic into this, that makes too much sense... besides when you have bested a fool, you have accomplished nothing and he is a fool.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 06-19-2017, 11:09 AM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post

So rather than use the well-understood (though overly powerful, as the letter outlines) interstate commerce power, the authors of the bill suggest that instead the bill should be based on a Constitutional principle that has hardly ever been used???
With respect to interstate commerce, if we allow that it can be used by the federal government to regulate carry within a state by non-residents don't we risk that protocol being applied to residents within their state, should Congress decide to do so? After all, the linch pin is the firearm, not the citizen. That the person using the firearm happens to be, in the current bill, a non-resident is merely a legislative choice.

Are we setting ourselves up for a court decision some time in the future which allows Congress to regulate all firearms carry within the states? Is the act of carrying a gun something that can be regulated by the commerce clause?

Last edited by dfletcher; 06-19-2017 at 12:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 06-19-2017, 2:35 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,141
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Browning View Post
The National Reciprocity Bill would allow them to use their permits to carry in DC, correct?

If so, the special bill they've introduced should tell us that they have no intention of passing the other bill, otherwise, why introduce it?

DC Swampers better not screw the rest of us on this. Equal under the law, right?
Rep. Massie said his bill would cover everyone, not just Congress.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 06-19-2017, 4:29 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
With respect to interstate commerce, if we allow that it can be used by the federal government to regulate carry within a state by non-residents don't we risk that protocol being applied to residents within their state, should Congress decide to do so? After all, the linch pin is the firearm, not the citizen. That the person using the firearm happens to be, in the current bill, a non-resident is merely a legislative choice.
Regulation can go either way, at any level. Frankly, I'd rather not see any "regulation" at all. Freedom means being able to do what you want when you want, as long as you're not harming someone else (which includes impeding their liberty) in the process.

But people in this country don't give a crap about freedom anymore. They want to be slaves. They like to be told what to do. Oh, they'll cry about it when it turns out to be something they truly don't want to do, but they'll applaud it under any other circumstance.


Quote:
Are we setting ourselves up for a court decision some time in the future which allows Congress to regulate all firearms carry within the states? Is the act of carrying a gun something that can be regulated by the commerce clause?
Anything can be regulated under the Commerce Clause with jurisprudence as it is right now. That's the point of the letter in question. The problem here, however, is that you do not avoid that fact merely by refusing to pass a protective regulatory law. The jurisprudence is already there. The damage is already done, and the Supreme Court looks to have no intention of reversing it (quite the contrary -- it has reinforced it).

That means that even if you avoid writing a protective regulatory law now, that does not prevent a later prohibitive regulatory law from being passed.

No, you're better off passing a protective regulatory measure now and forcing the opposition to go to the extra effort of overturning it before they can pass a prohibitive regulatory measure.


But the main message I was trying to convey is that the authors are idiots for suggesting that an ill-defined Constitutional basis be used as the sole Constitutional justification for the reciprocity law. It may make sense to use that in addition to the Commerce Clause (so that both justifications have to be overcome for the law to be overturned by the courts -- and the law would have to be written in such a way as to make that crystal clear, since otherwise the courts will "interpret" the law as being invalid if it fails any of its Constitutional justifications), but not as a standalone justification.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 06-20-2017, 8:17 PM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,809
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

It is unacceptable with the recent events in addition to the Republicans controlling the House, Senate and WH that this bill has not been brought up to a vote. I am going to once again contact my congress member. Let's just get this thing passed, but ensure that all law abiding Americans are included.

Peruta is going nowhere, so waiting for it is foolish.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 06-21-2017, 9:18 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 67
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

People keep saying that, yet are ignoring that fact that we are 8 votes short of passing a filibuster of any bill in the Senate. It really ISN'T as easy as you are implying. They can bring this up any time, but they need to get votes from 8 Democrats if they actually want to pass it. Are there any wobbly Democrat Senators in red states? Probably not 8. Also, as people have said, the Republicans are focused on the midterms, and that means they are focused on their two biggest campaign promises... Healthcare and taxes. Concealed carry is definitely a distant 3rd, and they will be using their time and influence on the first two big issues. When they aren't mired in Trump scandals (real or perceived).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
It is unacceptable with the recent events in addition to the Republicans controlling the House, Senate and WH that this bill has not been brought up to a vote. I am going to once again contact my congress member. Let's just get this thing passed, but ensure that all law abiding Americans are included.

Peruta is going nowhere, so waiting for it is foolish.

Last edited by mit31; 06-21-2017 at 9:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 06-21-2017, 9:53 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,736
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
People keep saying that, yet are ignoring that fact that we are 8 votes short of passing a filibuster of any bill in the Senate. It really ISN'T as easy as you are implying. They can bring this up any time, but they need to get votes from 8 Democrats if they actually want to pass it. Are there any wobbly Democrat Senators in red states? Probably not 8. Also, as people have said, the Republicans are focused on the midterms, and that means they are focused on their two biggest campaign promises... Healthcare and taxes. Concealed carry is definitely a distant 3rd, and they will be using their time and influence on the first two big issues. When they aren't mired in Trump scandals (real or perceived).
But I haven't seen a good/popular Healthcare bill or Tax bill.

So they're going to use up all our political capital on things that are going to be unpopular, and make it so there's no bounce.

They're going to destroy rather than build support, and we're just sitting here letting it happen. Reciprocity won't have more votes if the major accomplishments are AHCA and Bush-style tax cuts.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:05 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 67
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That is a possible outcome. I do happen to think that healthcare and taxes ARE more important to most people than CCW. Whether or not they can actually make decent bills that can get passed <shrug>.

I'd call or email all of my political representatives, but for some reason I feel they won't listen:

Dianne Feinstein
US Senator for California (D)
Kamala Harris
US Senator for California (D)
Alan S. Lowenthal
US Representative for California district 47 (D)
Ricardo Lara
CA Senator for district 33 (D)
Patrick O'Donnell
CA Assemblymember for district 70 (D)


Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
But I haven't seen a good/popular Healthcare bill or Tax bill.

So they're going to use up all our political capital on things that are going to be unpopular, and make it so there's no bounce.

They're going to destroy rather than build support, and we're just sitting here letting it happen. Reciprocity won't have more votes if the major accomplishments are AHCA and Bush-style tax cuts.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 06-21-2017, 10:59 AM
selfshrevident's Avatar
selfshrevident selfshrevident is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 631
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
It is unacceptable with the recent events in addition to the Republicans controlling the House, Senate and WH that this bill has not been brought up to a vote. I am going to once again contact my congress member. Let's just get this thing passed, but ensure that all law abiding Americans are included.

Peruta is going nowhere, so waiting for it is foolish.
It's not being brought up to a vote because House & Senate leadership don't want it to be voted on, for 2 reasons.

1. They don't want to fight the democrats/media on the issue
2. They're also providing cover for those republicans who say they'd vote for it but actually won't when it comes down to it (i.e. the republican votes aren't there in the senate. Hell they weren't even there for 0bamacare repeal).
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 06-21-2017, 5:13 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post

Anything can be regulated under the Commerce Clause with jurisprudence as it is right now. That's the point of the letter in question. The problem here, however, is that you do not avoid that fact merely by refusing to pass a protective regulatory law. The jurisprudence is already there. The damage is already done, and the Supreme Court looks to have no intention of reversing it (quite the contrary -- it has reinforced it).

That means that even if you avoid writing a protective regulatory law now, that does not prevent a later prohibitive regulatory law from being passed.

No, you're better off passing a protective regulatory measure now and forcing the opposition to go to the extra effort of overturning it before they can pass a prohibitive regulatory measure.

Isn't this akin to "anyone can break a truce"? It's true of course, but once one entity opens the door doesn't that make more likely the other side will, when the time is opportune, strike back and justify it by asserting the other side went first? Left alone an uneasy stalemate applies.

The Hudson bill allows states that prohibit carrying in public to opt out. However unlikely to be practiced it is a legal cure to avoiding the law's requirements. If SCOTUS find that carrying in public is constitutionally protected how might this impact the reciprocity law as written? Applying an unconsitutional remedy to opt out of the law can't be contemplated, I'd presume.
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 06-21-2017, 5:18 PM
PoorRichRichard's Avatar
PoorRichRichard PoorRichRichard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Berdoo
Posts: 1,684
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Tag
__________________
You are the weapon, your firearm is just a tool. It's a shame so many get the two mixed up.

www.jesseshunting.com Great stuff

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Anyone who Threatens it.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 06-21-2017, 5:58 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Isn't this akin to "anyone can break a truce"? It's true of course, but once one entity opens the door doesn't that make more likely the other side will, when the time is opportune, strike back and justify it by asserting the other side went first? Left alone an uneasy stalemate applies.
Well, firstly, that reasoning holds only if all involved entities are willing to hold back. The other side most certainly is not. The proof is that, secondly, the commerce clause has already been used against the right to arms by the opposition. Did you forget about the federal "assault weapons" ban?

And finally, the only way you'll see the commerce clause weakened is through court action against it.


The message here is simple: it's time to stop treating the opposition as if it were an honorable party. It has demonstrated, time after time after time, that it is most certainly not.



Quote:

The Hudson bill allows states that prohibit carrying in public to opt out. However unlikely to be practiced it is a legal cure to avoiding the law's requirements. If SCOTUS find that carrying in public is constitutionally protected how might this impact the reciprocity law as written? Applying an unconsitutional remedy to opt out of the law can't be contemplated, I'd presume.

I'll have to review the Hudson bill. I don't recall an option for any state to opt out of the requirement that it allow carry by those holding out of state carry permits.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 06-21-2017, 6:31 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 509
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
I'll have to review the Hudson bill. I don't recall an option for any state to opt out of the requirement that it allow carry by those holding out of state carry permits.
Only states having a law that allows residents to carry concealed would be subject to the required reciprocity. All states currently have laws that (theoretically) allow residents to carry concealed (pending approval via whatever application process and requirements (aka "infringements") are in place). Thus, the only option for a state to opt out of the national reciprocity would be to repeal their law allowing for concealed carry... and then they'd be in fact as Hawaii is de facto... not one single person in the entire state would be lawfully allowed to carry concealed. But open carry...
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 06-21-2017, 8:03 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Well, firstly, that reasoning holds only if all involved entities are willing to hold back. The other side most certainly is not. The proof is that, secondly, the commerce clause has already been used against the right to arms by the opposition. Did you forget about the federal "assault weapons" ban?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree the "other side" is usually the moving party in these things, they seem to be the ones pushing an agenda but never owning up to it. But with respect to the narrow issue of regulating carry within the states by their residents, they haven't crossed that threshold. So, I wonder if our efforts invite a response.

With respect to non-res and using prohibition on carry in public, quoting abbreviated sections is always risky, but I take this from the bill as posted on page one:

‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

‘‘(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, 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 that—

‘‘(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.

Am I seeing too much in the phrase "and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides" if I interpret it to mean a non-resident permit ("issued by a state") and that "or is entitled" refers to constitutional carry state residents in which no permit is issued?

By "opt out" I meant that a state could do so by prohibiting concealed carry entirely within it boundaries - such as IL did until a few years back. No permitting at all, total prohibition on concealed carry.

Last edited by dfletcher; 06-21-2017 at 8:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 06-21-2017, 9:59 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,084
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I agree the "other side" is usually the moving party in these things, they seem to be the ones pushing an agenda but never owning up to it. But with respect to the narrow issue of regulating carry within the states by their residents, they haven't crossed that threshold. So, I wonder if our efforts invite a response.
My point is that it doesn't matter if our efforts invite a response or not. The "response" is coming regardless.

If the other side is going to take that kind of action anyway, there is no downside to using that kind of legislation to get us closer to our goals. To refrain from doing so only makes things easier for them and, later, even harder for us.


Quote:
Am I seeing too much in the phrase "and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides" if I interpret it to mean a non-resident permit ("issued by a state") and that "or is entitled" refers to constitutional carry state residents in which no permit is issued?

By "opt out" I meant that a state could do so by prohibiting concealed carry entirely within it boundaries - such as IL did until a few years back. No permitting at all, total prohibition on concealed carry.
Apologies for my prior version of this. I'm so used to people misinterpreting that language that I didn't read what you said carefully.

You're reading the phrase correctly, IMO. It talks of two possibilities:
  1. The person is carrying a valid license issued by a state and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm
  2. The person is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the state in which the person resides

The purpose of the latter is to deal with states which do not require a permit of their residents in order for them to carry concealed. Absent that latter language, such a person would have to acquire a nonresident carry permit before he could carry anywhere but his home state.

If the bill required a person to acquire a permit from their home state, then the language of the first option would be incorrect and superfluous, as the language of the second option would be sufficient to cover both the "permit required" scenario and the "permit not required" one, since someone who has a carry permit from his resident state is obviously entitled to carry in that state.


As such, based on reading the bill in the only way that allows it to be internally consistent, there is no way for states to "opt out" save to explicitly prohibit concealed carry, as you noted. But if a state does that, it runs afoul of Moore. It would then have to allow open carry (though I suppose it could enact the same arbitrary restrictions that current anti-rights states enact on concealed carry).

But allowing open carry by members of the general public, even if through a "may issue" system, carries with it the "disadvantage" of acclimating the general population to the presence of visible firearms in their midst.


Anyway, this is an interesting way to "opt out" and I suppose if the authors of the bill wanted, they could amend the language to remove the "concealed" portion of the first option. At that point, the only way a state could "opt out" without running afoul of Moore would be for it to allow only permitless open carry.



That it is clearly possible for some (not you -- you nailed it) to be confused by the language clearly indicates that the language needs to be clarified, else it is guaranteed that hostile courts will maliciously "misinterpret" the language (they might do so anyway, but the language as it is allows them to do so without appearing malicious).
__________________
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; 06-21-2017 at 10:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 06-22-2017, 5:56 PM
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 11,788
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

^
I mean this partly in jest, but I'd not be surprised if CA reclassified any semi-auto pistol a "machine gun" and anything centerfire a "destructive device". My Bond Derringer 410 barrel is all by itself an SBS and Ruger Charger an AW - I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a stretch and take only a few years to unravel.
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 06-22-2017, 8:11 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 28,484
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
I'd call or email all of my political representatives, but for some reason I feel they won't listen:

Dianne Feinstein
US Senator for California (D)
Ya know, as much as I hate her position, I do have respect for her.

I have written to many legislators.
Dianne's responses were similar to the responses from conservative legislators.
The response was timely, topical, personal (actually addressed my statements and explained her reasons for disagreement), and the letters had wet signatures (or perhaps signed by a staff member).

Barbara, and other Dems?
Worthless.
Form letter response thanking me for my support, and stating that www.ipromiseiwon'tspamyou.com is a better way to get in contact and keep up on current activities.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just gov't will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just gov't. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
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 5:23 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.