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
  #41  
Old 03-03-2017, 9:55 AM
pitbuljake pitbuljake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Temporarily on earth
Posts: 185
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
Silly me. And here I always thought that precedent in Wickard v. Filburn demonstrated that interstate commerce was anything congress says it is.

^^^^^Sounds about right to me. Those that don't have a CCW in Cali are still going to get screwed
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-03-2017, 10:06 AM
Strongisland Strongisland is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 271
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
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:



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.
Ahh ok. Thank you for clearing that up for me.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-03-2017, 10:24 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius View Post
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 CLEOs and politicians in LA, SF, and wherever that any yokel from Ohio or Florida or Oregon or Nevada can carry in LA, SF, or wherever, ....
Fixed it for you.

It might end up as a choice between the House bill that we LOVE, but will be caught up in the federal courts for years, or the Senate bill which does not directly benefit those of us in CA anti counties, but will flood Hawaii, CA, MD, NJ, MA, NYC, D.C. etc with hundreds of thousands of out-of-state CCWers EVERY year!

Think of the LA Co sheriff bragging that he's issued fewer than 1,000 CCWs. Now think of how STUPID he'll appear saying that, and the pointlessness of it, when there are 50,000 out-of-state CCWers visiting LA Co on any given day and he can't do anything to stop it. Nat'l Recip renders him IMPOTENT!!! Anti sheriffs may eventually say, "F--- it. Everyone else is carrying in my county, I might as well let my residents/voters carry if they want too."
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-03-2017 at 11:06 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:03 AM
Aragorn's Avatar
Aragorn Aragorn is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 189
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Fixed it for you.

It might end up as a contest between the House bill that we LOVE (but will be caught up in the federal courts for years) or the Senate bill which does not directly benefit those of us in CA anti counties, but will FLOOD Hawaii, CA, MD, NJ, MA, NYC, D.C. etc with tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of out-of-state CCWers EVERY year starting next year!

Think of the LA Co sheriff bragging that he's issued fewer than 1,000 CCWs. Now think of how STUPID he'll appear saying that, and the pointlessness of it, when there are 50,000 out-of-state CCWers visiting LA Co on any given day. Nat'l Recip renders him IMPOTENT!!!
Granted, passage of S. 446 would be better than nothing.

But I think we all here are sick and tired of 'better than nothing' responses from our leaders posing as solutions.
__________________

President of Front Sight, Life Member
Gun Owners of America Life Member
NRA Benefactor Life Member

"When seconds count, the police will be there in a few minutes."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:12 AM
sarabellum sarabellum is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,107
iTrader: 9 / 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.
To date, neither Heller nor any other published decision has reached that conclusion. If there is such a case, please cite its language.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:13 PM
ECG_88's Avatar
ECG_88 ECG_88 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 574
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post

Think of the LA Co sheriff bragging that he's issued fewer than 1,000 CCWs. Now think of how STUPID he'll appear saying that, and the pointlessness of it, when there are 50,000 out-of-state CCWers visiting LA Co on any given day and he can't do anything to stop it. Nat'l Recip renders him IMPOTENT!!! Anti sheriffs may eventually say, "F--- it. Everyone else is carrying in my county, I might as well let my residents/voters carry if they want too."
I don't think it will matter. Anti-gun sheriffs will be anti-gun until their reelection is threatened, or a court order threatens them.

People from other counties in CA can already carry in LA, and it has not changed his mind. I don't see how out of state carriers will make any difference.
__________________
Emotional appeal is a marketing tactic and not a foundation for effective argument.

Nulla Fatere, Omnia Nega, Accusatorem Accusa
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-03-2017, 12:37 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
I don't think it will matter. Anti-gun sheriffs will be anti-gun until their reelection is threatened, or a court order threatens them.

People from other counties in CA can already carry in LA, and it has not changed his mind. I don't see how out of state carriers will make any difference.
Remember that cute phrase people who carry illegally yet have never been caught use?

"Concealed means concealed".

OPEN carry has a chance of changing minds and the image. But concealed means concealed. Which means it's all theoretical, schrodinger's cat's armament.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-03-2017, 4:27 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Fixed it for you.

It might end up as a choice between the House bill that we LOVE, but will be caught up in the federal courts for years, or the Senate bill which does not directly benefit those of us in CA anti counties, but will flood Hawaii, CA, MD, NJ, MA, NYC, D.C. etc with hundreds of thousands of out-of-state CCWers EVERY year!
I was thinking about our situation while I was driving around this afternoon. I'm now thinking the best move might be for our side to pass the Senate version this legislative year and wait until next year (an election year), to pass the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Improvement Act which will change the Senate version to the House version.

Why? Because either version getting signed into law will be followed by a federal lawsuit by the antis asking for an immediate PI. IMO, they are MUCH less likely to be granted a PI against the Senate version. Thus, we'll start flooding the 8 remaining May Issue states and D.C. with non-resident CCWers immediately while the anti lawsuit works its way thru the federal courts over years.

Then, next year, an election year, we pass the Improvement Act. That too will get immediately challenged in federal courts, also seeking a PI. If the antis are granted a PI, we're still busy flooding the May Issue states w/out-of-state CCWers because the Senate version will be in effect. If the antis are not granted a PI against the "improvement", we waited 1 year longer than we had to, but we will be able to CCW in CA with non-CA CCWs.

But, you may ask, isn't there a way of writing the law such that if one part of it gets shot down in court (or is subject to a PI), that the rest of it isn't? Yes, but as we've seen too often in post-Heller-McDonald 2nd A lawsuits, federal judges (trial or appellate), can be quite creative in getting their way. Putting the goodies for gunnies in the 8 remaining May Issue states and DC in (1) an entirely separate bill from (2) an entirely separate legislative year will ensure that we do not put what we won with the Senate version in jeopardy by later going for the House version's advantages. Instead of trying for a single knockout punch, we'll use the ol' 1-2 combination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn View Post
Granted, passage of S. 446 would be better than nothing.

But I think we all here are sick and tired of 'better than nothing' responses from our leaders posing as solutions.
My suggestion in this post solves the either/or conundrum. We get most this year and try for the rest next year. The makes sure we at least get the one ASAP while we hope to ultimately get them both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ECG_88 View Post
I don't think it will matter. Anti-gun sheriffs will be anti-gun until their reelection is threatened, or a court order threatens them.

People from other counties in CA can already carry in LA, and it has not changed his mind. I don't see how out of state carriers will make any difference.
I posted that to find a silver lining in just getting the Senate version. As I state above in this post, I now think we can get BOTH safely by going for the Senate version this year and then passing a bill to modify it into the House version next year.

Last, IIRC as of last summer there were 15M CCWers around the nation. In CA we only have 80k. I'm confident the main tourist areas -- SD, LA, SBarbara, SFBA -- which are hardcore anti will get FLOODED with 10s of thousands or even 100s of thousands of out-of-state CCWers, more than ALL the CA CCWers combined.

There might even be a spike in tourism as folks who refused to come to the PRK now want to just to flip off the CA antis (Hollywood, SF, Sacto).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-03-2017 at 4:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-03-2017, 5:09 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Last, IIRC as of last summer there were 15M CCWers around the nation. In CA we only have 80k. I'm confident the main tourist areas -- SD, LA, SBarbara, SFBA -- which are hardcore anti will get FLOODED with 10s of thousands or even 100s of thousands of out-of-state CCWers, more than ALL the CA CCWers combined.

There might even be a spike in tourism as folks who refused to come to the PRK now want to just to flip off the CA antis (Hollywood, SF, Sacto).
Read this until you fully understand the implications: concealed means concealed.


Hint: you can't care about something you're not even aware of.




(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
__________________
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
  #50  
Old 03-03-2017, 6:07 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Read this until you fully understand the implications: concealed means concealed.


Hint: you can't care about something you're not even aware of.
You're right: I forgot that CA LEOs are not allowed to pull over out-of-state CCWers for moving violations....

Plus, I'm sure they're never the targets of violent crimes and so they'll never join the 210+ CCW incidents I've linked in my sig line (and thus will never make the news)....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 03-03-2017, 6:45 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,611
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyDave View Post
Silly me. And here I always thought that precedent in Wickard v. Filburn demonstrated that interstate commerce was anything congress says it is.
What you typed is covered by interstate commerce - and don't roll your eyes at me, that's covered too ....
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 03-03-2017, 7:06 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
You're right: I forgot that CA LEOs are not allowed to pull over out-of-state CCWers for moving violations....

Plus, I'm sure they're never the targets of violent crimes and so they'll never join the 210+ CCW incidents I've linked in my sig line (and thus will never make the news)....
Gee, you're right! All it takes is for the cops to talk about how many people are carrying guns but not committing crimes, and how they aren't a problem. And then the newspapers will report this in a neutral or positive way, that lots of tourists are coming here with guns and yet it's not a problem.

Wait a sec...

Maybe that won't work, but surely when a concealed carry person helps avert a mass shooting, that will get positive airplay, right?

It's not like the press aids and abets liberals nationwide, and especially in California, avoid facing reality right?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/0...cal-landscape/
Huh, well at least our opponents can admit that carriers actually help avert crime right?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...uy-with-a-gun/
http://www.wtsp.com/mb/news/local/guns/409574061
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 03-03-2017, 7:32 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
You're right: I forgot that CA LEOs are not allowed to pull over out-of-state CCWers for moving violations....

Plus, I'm sure they're never the targets of violent crimes and so they'll never join the 210+ CCW incidents I've linked in my sig line (and thus will never make the news)....
Sarcasm aside, you're absolutely right with that last. They'll never make the news. Why in the world would the media, especially here in this state, want to actually advertise that out-of-state residents can carry in California and that they managed to avert crimes while doing so?

The media is looking for ways to make carry look like a bad thing. If a non-resident concealed carrier shoots someone that the media can portray as a good person, then you bet your bottom dollar they'll plaster that all over the news. Otherwise, they'll remain quiet.

And as a result, the masses will be none the wiser because they won't see anything different.


What, you think the media is actually unbiased here?

Or maybe you think the people running the media are stupid.


Quit pretending that the enemy is led by idiots. We averted permanent disaster in the last Presidential election by the skin of our teeth. If we're going to be stupid enough to assume that said victory was ordained, inevitable, etc., then we deserve to lose for our idiocy.
__________________
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; 03-03-2017 at 7:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 03-03-2017, 7:45 PM
iroquois's Avatar
iroquois iroquois is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 768
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default Response from Charlie Hinders from GOA

I sent the same questions to Charlie Hinders from GOA before contacting my representatives.
PM me if you would like to see his response. Don't care to make the strategy of the bill public.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:07 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Lol, it feels like KC is exactly mirroring my thoughts on the matter.

Look at this week in press coverage.

Trump gives a good speech. Democrats wail! They can't run against Trump, and he'll dominate the news cycle with positive press, further marginalizing them, and making the destruction of the party certain!

Then the Uber meltdown happens. That video was filmed on Superbowl day supposedly. And it's just coming out now?

Jeff Sessions perjuring himself just HAPPENS to happen now. Not that he'd committed the perjury before, and they waited to drop the info to rain on Trump's parade.

No, pay no attention to the men behind the curtain, busily editing media packages for counterpunching narratives to string Trump along and bleed him out, as they've figured knockout blows only make him stronger, so they're just going to gutshoot him until he drops.

They were JUST worrying they wouldn't be able to turn the news from positive Trump affirmations, then these MAJOR news stories break immediately.

Say, you remember that Trump brought the Gold star widow to the speech, but also brought the survivors of the two cops gunned down by an illegal alien in the Sacramento area a couple years ago? I remember the media furor over TWO cops being killed in ONE DAY by the same suspect.

Wait, they basically softpedaled the story and it went nowhere as it didn't fit the narrative they wanted?

Oh.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 03-03-2017 at 8:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:22 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Sarcasm aside, you're absolutely right with that last. They'll never make the news. Why in the world would the media, especially here in this state, want to actually advertise that out-of-state residents can carry in California and that they managed to avert crimes while doing so?

The media is looking for ways to make carry look like a bad thing. If a non-resident concealed carrier shoots someone that the media can portray as a good person, then you bet your bottom dollar they'll plaster that all over the news. Otherwise, they'll remain quiet.

And as a result, the masses will be none the wiser because they won't see anything different.


What, you think the media is actually unbiased here?

Or maybe you think the people running the media are stupid.
I find it humorous how often people who revel in being sarcastic don't like being the recipients of sarcasm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Read this until you fully understand the implications:
if you don't like receiving sarcasm, don't be sarcastic.

FWIW my 210+ CCW incidents were reported by the media. much?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Quit pretending that the enemy is led by idiots. We averted permanent disaster in the last Presidential election by the skin of our teeth. If we're going to be stupid enough to assume that said victory was ordained, inevitable, etc., then we deserve to lose for our idiocy.
I don't know what this is about. Maybe just something you needed to get off of your chest. Whatever....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-03-2017 at 8:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:26 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Maybe that won't work, but surely when a concealed carry person helps avert a mass shooting, that will get positive airplay, right?

It's not like the press aids and abets liberals nationwide, and especially in California, avoid facing reality right?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/0...cal-landscape/
Huh, well at least our opponents can admit that carriers actually help avert crime right?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...uy-with-a-gun/
http://www.wtsp.com/mb/news/local/guns/409574061
What the CA MSM reports and what CAians believe are not the same thing. Some CAians are actually adults and critical thinkers and don't buy the MSM spin.

Anyway, all of this is a secondary topic to the main point I was making which was our side should probably push for the Senate version this year and the House improvements next year.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:45 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What the CA MSM reports and what CAians believe are not the same thing. Some CAians are actually adults and critical thinkers and don't buy the MSM spin.
Got a link?/ Proof please. I'm watching democrats in Alameda county and SF double down, and refuse to even see the one-sided hit jobs of "anonymous" leaks that aren't even confirmed aren't "real news". This common sense thing hasn't happened. All I see is doubling down on protecting illegal aliens, resisting trump at all costs, indivisible groups and meetings on the rise, favorable news coverage of them, and next to zero of positive Trump or Trump supporters.

I'd LOVE to believe Californians are reachable and can be turned around. I have seen NO evidence of that at all. I was just outside whole foods today and a woman had a sign and a kid, the sign read, "My husband was deported please help". It's gone from "Why lie, it's for weed" where they ask me to subsidize a weed habit, to asking me to subsidize their illegal status and children!!! I didn't even realize til listening to NPR that California offers financial aid to illegal immigrants to make up for the fact they can't get federal aid! I am done. Unless some things turn around, I am out of this state in a year. I can't handle it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Anyway, all of this is a secondary topic to the main point I was making which was our side should probably push for the Senate version this year and the House improvements next year.
Yeah, it's a great strategy, but that relies upon Republicans making guns THAT big an issue. We've barely moved either bill, and Republicans are already trying to burn political capital on Obamacare and Tax cuts. Ryan wants to shred the social safety net. The bush administration was able to withstand getting us into Iraq- but they were unable to withstand the privatization of social security and tax cuts. Trump's congress is basically on track to replicating Bush's years, with the exception of a crap war (for now).

I'm not feeling confident that we can get the political capital and head knocking done two years in a row on guns. Sadly, I don't think the gun vote is that unequivocally strong enough to get us that.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 03-03-2017 at 8:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:46 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,611
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post

The media is looking for ways to make carry look like a bad thing. If a non-resident concealed carrier shoots someone that the media can portray as a good person, then you bet your bottom dollar they'll plaster that all over the news. Otherwise, they'll remain quiet.

And as a result, the masses will be none the wiser because they won't see anything different.


What, you think the media is actually unbiased here?

Or maybe you think the people running the media are stupid.

IIRC last year SF Channel 5 carried an "investigative report" into the number of CCW permits issued in CA. They presented the many "easier issue" counties as being reminiscent of the wild west and announced in OMIGOSH!! tones that some 500 people in El Dorado (or Placer, etc) had CCWs.

This wasn't a 30 second "reporter on the scene" item but an anchor introduced & commented on, followed by discussion segment.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:47 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I find it humorous how often people who revel in being sarcastic don't like being the recipients of sarcasm.
Oh, I like it just fine (in fact, whatever made you think I don't like sarcasm? I think sarcasm is awesome. And no, I'm not being sarcastic here). Keep it coming.


Quote:
FWIW my 210+ CCW incidents were reported by the media. much?
not so much. Otherwise, you're left explaining this sentence in the very message in which you enumerate the CCW incidents:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
For news stories about guns being used for self-defense in public as well as when at home or work (which the national main stream media (MSM) ignores), see the NRA's Armed Citizen column and www.RationalityRebooted.com
(emphasis mine)

Quote:
I don't know what this is about. Maybe just something you needed to get off of your chest. Whatever....
It's about setting expectations. We're horrible at that. We always seem to set expectations on the basis of wild optimism. How has that worked out for us so far?

No, expectations need to be set on the basis of reality. And the reality is that the mainstream media is very strongly biased. You recognize that yourself with the sentence I quoted above. When the MSM reports something like what we're talking about, it's exceptional, not the norm. Expectations cannot rationally be set on the basis of exceptions.

Oh, one other thing: it doesn't count if the good guy is a cop or ex-cop. Cops are "special people" in the eyes of the MSM, so of course they'll talk about incidents involving those people.
__________________
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; 03-03-2017 at 9:16 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:50 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
What the CA MSM reports and what CAians believe are not the same thing. Some CAians are actually adults and critical thinkers and don't buy the MSM spin.
Some. Not enough. Else you're left with explaining how it is that this state's politics are so incredibly "progressive", to the point that the California legislature is composed of a Democrat supermajority.

While not all CA residents beliefs match that which the MSM pushes, the beliefs of the vast majority (as a percentage of population, which is mostly in the urban areas, of course) do.


Quote:
Anyway, all of this is a secondary topic to the main point I was making which was our side should probably push for the Senate version this year and the House improvements next year.
Yeah, that may prove to be a good idea. Then again, suppose we get the Senate version. What's the source of the push for the House version? After all, at that point, the citizens of the majority of the states have gotten what they want. Why would the representatives of those states expend additional political capital pushing a bill that only helps the residents of the very states who are against the bill in the first place?
__________________
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
  #62  
Old 03-03-2017, 8:53 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
IIRC last year SF Channel 5 carried an "investigative report" into the number of CCW permits issued in CA. They presented the many "easier issue" counties as being reminiscent of the wild west and announced in OMIGOSH!! tones that some 500 people in El Dorado (or Placer, etc) had CCWs.

This wasn't a 30 second "reporter on the scene" item but an anchor introduced & commented on, followed by discussion segment.
Yes.

Now imagine that out-of-staters can carry in "no-issue" areas. Do you really think that the MSM would try to portray the areas where most people actually live and can see with their own two eyes as suddenly being like the "wild west"?

That would be suicide for the MSM. Nothing destroys the credibility of a source of information like personal experience that contradicts it.
__________________
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
  #63  
Old 03-03-2017, 9:29 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I find it humorous how often people who revel in being sarcastic don't like being the recipients of sarcasm.

if you don't like receiving sarcasm, don't be sarcastic.
[...]

I don't know what this is about. Maybe just something you needed to get off of your chest. Whatever....
The has sort of been revived by me recently, while channeling my inner Fabio. Given that Fabio is the ONLY member I've seen use the (besides me when I'm CHANNELING Fabio) my money is on KC is trying to channel some Fabio as well. So sarcasm is to be expected, though maybe not tolerated. Give him a break, trying to Fabio is hard, especially if you're not used to that caustic tone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
FWIW my 210+ CCW incidents were reported by the media. much?
As I noted about the dead police, they WERE reported by CA press, and this is how:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/cri...le3410275.html
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/...-danny-oliver/
http://ktla.com/2014/10/29/prosecuto...ling-deputies/ (this one is talking about their CHARGING them- WELL after their illegal status was confirmed, as they figured out their names, they were married, etc. But no mention of illegal status- go figure, just an oversight, right?)

(national)http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/24/us/cal...hot/index.html

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/...0/25/17898479/ (notice the mention of the rifle? In the days after this, they were trying to use this to use this as fuel to make another war on "assault weapons" when they found out the criminal was an illegal alien, and they dropped the news story faster than Shannon Watts would drop a gun with spiders on it)

Then, the story basically died a few days afterwards, with no explanation for a BIG event- cops dying in such rapid succession was national news level stuff, and something they typically stuck with for a WHILE (this was before all the recent ambushes of cops). And I had to dig at the time to figure out what was going on.

Ah, finally, we get actual reporting on the real deal:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/wash...htmlstory.html
http://www.kcra.com/article/2-years-...mbered/7155444 (now that the bodies aren't just cold but rotting, it's OK to mention this as it won't actually cause people to reconsider their stance on illegal aliens)
But of course, that's only after:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ctuary-cities/

Yes, the press literally is a propaganda organ here.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 03-03-2017 at 9:36 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-03-2017, 11:19 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,041
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hey...Where is Fabio???...I haven't heard from him in awhile!!
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-04-2017, 7:08 AM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,772
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

All we can hope for is the senate bill is changed to mirror the house bill. Passing a law that excludes 50,000,000 plus American citizens their 2A rights is a cowardly act.

The folks in "the know" here seem to think that passing a garbage bill will give us some new legal standing, and we will get CCW that way. This type of thinking is a waste of time. In CA, even Heller and McDonald have done nothing for us. Years after these decisions, and we still have no CCW. It is also clear that SCOTUS has absolutely no desire to hear a case such as Peruta.

Play to win!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-04-2017, 9:45 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Good grief! You guys sure post a lot.

I'll try to reply to what I consider as needing replies. No offense intended, just time is tight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Got a link?/ Proof please. I'm watching democrats in Alameda county and SF double down, and refuse to even see the one-sided hit jobs of "anonymous" leaks that aren't even confirmed aren't "real news". This common sense thing hasn't happened. All I see is doubling down ....

I'd LOVE to believe Californians are reachable and can be turned around. I have seen NO evidence of that at all. I was just outside whole foods today and a woman had a sign and a kid, the sign read, "My husband was deported please help". It's gone from "Why lie, it's for weed" where they ask me to subsidize a weed habit, to asking me to subsidize their illegal status ....
From people I've met on my job, mostly middle income and above whites or Asians, I'd say 1/5th to 1/4th supported Trump. In CA, Trump supporters, like gunnies, tend to keep their heads down and don't put bumper stickers on their cars, so you only "see" one side in public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Yeah, it's a great strategy, but that relies upon Republicans making guns THAT big an issue. We've barely moved either bill, and Republicans are already trying to burn political capital on Obamacare and Tax cuts. ....

I'm not feeling confident that we can get the political capital and head knocking done two years in a row on guns. Sadly, I don't think the gun vote is that unequivocally strong enough to get us that.
Hate to say it but I think I wasted $200+ in applying for a FL CCW. The cutesy-cutesy way of undermining state's rights via the House bill is unlikely to pass judicial scrutiny. (fyi I don't know the level of scrutiny used to protect 10th A rights.) I'm thinking the GOP and NRA know that and and that's why the later, Senate introduced bill doesn't have it. But neither the NRA nor the GOP wants to tell gunnies in the last 8 + DC that it won't work. Better to get a half-a-loaf than none?

FWIW the Senate version is EXCELLENT if you have a CCW, so for the 42 other states, it will be a significant win.

We've gone from 8M CCWers in 2011 to >15M as of last summer. Those people know people who they've told they have CCWs. The CCW "cat" is out of the bag. In the last two weeks, Bloomberg and NEWSWEEK have had major stories talking about Nat'l Recip and how it will be the top 2nd A fight of this year. That will only get more people to search online for info and they'll find BOTH anti AND pro info! I'll never forget watching this on ABC in the summer of 2012, how Geo. Steph. and the rest of the morning gang were laughing about not messing with old guys in Bermuda shorts wearing golf hats. LOL! See news video at:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man...ry?id=16800859

This is just the raw crime video:


More recently, I saw on national MSM sites stories about the CCWer who saved that FL LEO's life back in, IIRC, Dec and the CCWer who saved an AZ LEO's life in Jan.

The MSM monopoly on information has been broken thanks to the internet! (Thanks, Algore! )

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
not so much. Otherwise, you're left explaining this sentence in the very message in which you enumerate the CCW incidents:

<snip>

No, expectations need to be set on the basis of reality. And the reality is that the mainstream media is very strongly biased. You recognize that yourself with the sentence I quoted above. When the MSM reports something like what we're talking about, it's exceptional, not the norm. Expectations cannot rationally be set on the basis of exceptions.
I wrote what you quoted many years ago, back when I started my list (~2006), years before I put it on CGN in July 2012 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=598875). Although that is, for the most part, still true for the national MSM, I don't think it matters as much as it used to.

If you go thru the 1st page of it at its new location (linked in my sig line), you'll see that ~2008 - '09 the frequency of CCW incidents takes off. Why? Because, IMO, that's when a LOT of local news sources (print & TV), started putting stories online. I do NOT think it was because of a sudden upsurge in CCW shootings. What does that matter?

(1) Local gunnies now post on national/international forums links to those stories so they get out despite the national/international MSM usually ignoring them.

(2) Because those CCW incidents are being reported by local media online, every time someone searches for CCW shootings they show up in their searches. The WW II generation is gone. The Korean War generation is dying. (Heck, even David Cassidy says he's got dementia!). Fewer and fewer voters are of the non-internet comfortable cohort. Fewer and fewer are dependent upon the national/international MSM and that's why the MSM is not trusted anymore. CNN's ratings are in the toilet, where they belong.

(3) the national MSM is talking about CCWs and CCW incidents. After San Bernardino, they reported that the sheriff told people to get CCWs. A few years ago, IIRC, in a city in LA their chief encouraged people to get CCWs (might have been women due to a rapist. I forget and don't have the time to search for it).

Adding those 3 points to what I posted to lowimpactuser, I think my statement while still true is getting less and less important.

Anyway, that's all I have time for today. My FL CCW application should arrive in FL today. My FL CCW will be good for 7 years. That will give Congress and the Courts plenty of time to sort Nat'l Recip out. I can't influence that or Peruta, Nichols, or any of the other RBA cases, so other than monitoring ConCarry progress and a handful of restrictive CA counties and their CCW policies & practices, I won't be posting much (I hope!) since I'm not retired or independently wealthy.

Carry on!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-05-2017 at 9:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-04-2017, 11:45 AM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does the Senate bill state that you must follow your issuance states laws or the current state your in laws? IE can I bring my 17 round mags into MA from NH and be good according to the Senate bill?
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-04-2017, 12:20 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,758
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Fixed it for you.

It might end up as a choice between the House bill that we LOVE, but will be caught up in the federal courts for years, or the Senate bill which does not directly benefit those of us in CA anti counties, but will flood Hawaii, CA, MD, NJ, MA, NYC, D.C. etc with hundreds of thousands of out-of-state CCWers EVERY year!

Think of the LA Co sheriff bragging that he's issued fewer than 1,000 CCWs. Now think of how STUPID he'll appear saying that, and the pointlessness of it, when there are 50,000 out-of-state CCWers visiting LA Co on any given day and he can't do anything to stop it. Nat'l Recip renders him IMPOTENT!!! Anti sheriffs may eventually say, "F--- it. Everyone else is carrying in my county, I might as well let my residents/voters carry if they want too."
Yup. If S. 446 passes and Los Angeles figures out they can tax the hell out of us on carry permits, they will start issuing.

I'm also in the agreement that the home-state-permit bill is a trillion times better than no bill.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-04-2017, 3:37 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,588
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default 2017 S. 446, Cornyn: Competing National Reciprocity Bill Introduced in Senate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
I wrote what you quoted many years ago, back when I started my list (~2006), years before I put it on CGN in July 2012 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=598875). Although that is, for the most part, still true for the national MSM, I don't think it matters as much as it used to.

If you go thru the 1st page of it at its new location (linked in my sig line), you'll see that ~2008 - '09 the frequency of CCW incidents takes off. Why? Because, IMO, that's when a LOT of local news sources (print & TV), started putting stories online. I do NOT think it was because of a sudden upsurge in CCW shootings. What does that matter?

(1) Local gunnies now post on national/international forums links to those stories so they get out despite the national/international MSM usually ignoring them.

(2) Because those CCW incidents are being reported by local media online, every time someone searches for CCW shootings they show up in their searches. The WW II generation is gone. The Korean War generation is dying. (Heck, even David Cassidy says he's got dementia!). Fewer and fewer voters are of the non-internet comfortable cohort. Fewer and fewer are dependent upon the national/international MSM and that's why the MSM is not trusted anymore. CNN's ratings are in the toilet, where they belong.
All that is a good point (but see below). We can only hope to see that accelerate as time goes on. I, for one, am sick and tired of the MSM.


Quote:
(3) the national MSM is talking about CCWs and CCW incidents. After San Bernardino, they reported that the sheriff told people to get CCWs. A few years ago, IIRC, in a city in LA their chief encouraged people to get CCWs (might have been women due to a rapist. I forget and don't have the time to search for it).

Adding those 3 points to what I posted to lowimpactuser, I think my statement while still true is getting less and less important.
That may well be the case. And it may be that at some point in the indeterminate future, the availability of carry to out-of-state residents will cause people within the state to desire the same ability. But that's not the way to bet.

Why? Because what you're talking about here amounts to changing people's minds. That requires more than mere presence of something. It requires overcoming someone's predispositions.

Let's take the very example you're using as evidence that the MSM matters less these days: the availability of the internet as a means of looking things up. Looking something up requires that someone actually take the time and effort to do so. Do you really think that's something the "snowflake generation" is going to do unless it's something they're already interested in? No, it's not. But that's precisely what would be required to change their minds. Worse, even if they look something up, it'll be against sites that tend to match their existing viewpoint. In the face of that, a change of mind would require that a viewpoint be pushed and supported. The benefits and positive value of carry would have to "go viral" among the urban California population for that to happen.

It's possible. But again, it's not the way to bet. And remember, we're talking about setting expectations here, i.e. determining what is most likely to happen.

That is why I remain greatly skeptical that the availability of concealed carry to nonresidents will do anything of consequence. Concealed means concealed, and so the only visibility into that will be gained through the sporadic reporting of incidents where it was used to good effect. But the MSM will attempt to amplify those incidents where things didn't go so well for the concealed carrier, precisely because that's their agenda. Which will win? Only time will tell, but logic applied to the above says that if that availability is to have a positive effect in the manner you're describing, it will be incredibly slow to do so.


One more thing: local reporting of an incident is just that: local. It tends to have negligible impact elsewhere. So as regards incident reporting, what matters is how often the positive incidents we speak of are reported by urban mainstream media. That reporting will obviously happen some, but what matters are the rates and trends. I'm skeptical that the trends are such they we'd see relatively consistent and widespread reporting of such incidents in urban areas in California, even by local media, within my lifetime.
__________________
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; 03-04-2017 at 6:17 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 03-05-2017, 9:34 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
That may well be the case. And it may be that at some point in the indeterminate future, the availability of carry to out-of-state residents will cause people within the state to desire the same ability. But that's not the way to bet.
I wasn't betting. I'm not even in the game (either as a party to one of the RBA lawsuits or as a member of either the US House or Senate). I'm just a bystander who was looking for a silver lining (of consequences) if the Senate bill should pass and not the House. But recall, my hope was that they BOTH pass, but the Senate this year and the House next year (since I don't trust federal judges to honor statutory severability clauses).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
Let's take the very example you're using as evidence that the MSM matters less these days: the availability of the internet as a means of looking things up. Looking something up requires that someone actually take the time and effort to do so. Do you really think that's something the "snowflake generation" is going to do unless it's something they're already interested in? No, it's not. But that's precisely what would be required to change their minds. Worse, even if they look something up, it'll be against sites that tend to match their existing viewpoint. In the face of that, a change of mind would require that a viewpoint be pushed and supported. The benefits and positive value of carry would have to "go viral" among the urban California population for that to happen.
"Snowflakes" probably don't believe CCWers have ever stopped any shootings/crimes, that you're more likely to shoot yourself, an innocent, or have your gun taken away and used against you. All it takes is sending someone like that a link to my list and they'll quickly realize (if they're intellectually honest), that they've been lied to. They'll then have a choice: admit they were wrong because the "authorities" they trusted (teachers/profs, MSM, whatever) lied to them and change their position, or maintain their position and know that they're a liar too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcbrown View Post
One more thing: local reporting of an incident is just that: local. It tends to have negligible impact elsewhere. So as regards incident reporting, what matters is how often the positive incidents we speak of are reported by urban mainstream media.
The algorithms behind search engines are not that simple. Depending upon how you phrase your search, you can come up with: "concealed carry permits save lives" comes up with positive CCW stories, whereas "concealed carry shootings" comes up with anti stories. "Snowflakes" know this and are quite comfortable searching online.

I remember, IIRC, after "Bernie got his gun" in '84 G&A ran an article about all 50 state's laws re. CCWs. Until then I and my shooting buddies had NEVER even heard of CCWs/LTCs/whatever (outside of 007's "license to kill" . Nowadays, "inquiring minds" that "want to know" just search online using their phones wherever and whenever they want for a few minutes and find out more than we ever could.

FWIW to help "convert" anti/neutral lurkers or newbies, free to add a link to my list to your signature line.

FWIW2: I do NOT even have to look for CCW stories anymore, they're so frequent. If I did, I'd probably come across at least 1 every week nowadays. In 5 years we almost doubled the number of CCWs in the US, from 8M to >15M. In that same time, IIRC, in CA we went from ~45,000 to ~80,000 CCWers: again, almost doubling. I'm expecting us to break 100,000 within 3 years due to the massive increase after San Berdo radical Islamic terrorist attack (some apps are still in the pipeline) and transitioning to online apps (partially for new apps, totally for renewals).
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-20-2017 at 10:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 03-07-2017, 7:41 PM
chuckdc's Avatar
chuckdc chuckdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston,TX (Formerly, Fresno,CA)
Posts: 1,916
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

As someone living in the state that he (supposedly) represents, DON'T trust Cornyn! He likes to play that "I'm one of YOU" thing for conservatives and gun owners and so on, every 6 years in order to get re-elected and to get a pile of campaign ca$h from the NRA, but the rest of the time he quietly works against our interests behind closed doors. Bills like this one are a perfect example. Sounds great right off the bat, but includes several bug... err Features, that make it at best neutral, but usually counterproductive to our interests. Cornyn is part of the same "good ol' boy" network here in Texas that keeps improvements in the state laws from being passed as well. He backs all of what would be termed "establishment" Republicans against anyone who would make any improvments to things.
__________________
"Mr. Rat, I have a writ here that says you are to stop eating Chen Lee's cornmeal forthwith. Now, It's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of same!"
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-07-2017, 10:10 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckdc View Post
As someone living in the state that he (supposedly) represents, DON'T trust Cornyn! He likes to play that "I'm one of YOU" thing for conservatives and gun owners and so on, every 6 years in order to get re-elected and to get a pile of campaign ca$h from the NRA, but the rest of the time he quietly works against our interests behind closed doors. Bills like this one are a perfect example. Sounds great right off the bat, but includes several bug... err Features, that make it at best neutral, but usually counterproductive to our interests. Cornyn is part of the same "good ol' boy" network here in Texas that keeps improvements in the state laws from being passed as well. He backs all of what would be termed "establishment" Republicans against anyone who would make any improvments to things.
How the heck do we help you primary him out???
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 03-09-2017, 6:52 PM
chuckdc's Avatar
chuckdc chuckdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston,TX (Formerly, Fresno,CA)
Posts: 1,916
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
How the heck do we help you primary him out???
Well, if he decides to run again in 2020, and God doesn't "primary him out" since he's getting up there in years and all, we'll have to see who runs against him. The last Senate seat that changed hands here was Kay Bailey Hutchinson's seat that went to Ted Cruz back in '12 when she retired. Note that Cornyn (or, as our local talk guy Michael Berry calls him, John Wayne McCornyn) supported Cruz's opponent (Dewhurst), who was truly a low-down dirty snake. That's why it's hard to primary-out GOP guys here. They tend to have their seats for as long as they continue to want them. Another guy who could stand to go is Culberson, who is my current Rep. Like his stands on Second Amendment issues, but otherwise, he's a big spender who has been there far too long. The main reason he keeps his spot is that he is bought and paid for by the NRA. Not a BAD thing, per se, but we could do better, and may need to at the next redistricting. This area is getting more competitive as it gains minority residents. Houston is changing as certain neighborhoods rise and fall, and this one has some areas that are becoming more low-income and minority, and they tend to vote for creatures like the ever-despicable Sheila Jackson-Lee.
__________________
"Mr. Rat, I have a writ here that says you are to stop eating Chen Lee's cornmeal forthwith. Now, It's a rat writ, writ for a rat, and this is lawful service of same!"
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 03-10-2017, 3:44 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by butchy_boy View Post
Does the Senate bill state that you must follow your issuance states laws or the current state your in laws? IE can I bring my 17 round mags into MA from NH and be good according to the Senate bill?
No, still have to follow the state's laws.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 03-10-2017, 8:22 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckdc View Post
Well, if he decides to run again in 2020, and God doesn't "primary him out" since he's getting up there in years and all, we'll have to see who runs against him. The last Senate seat that changed hands here was Kay Bailey Hutchinson's seat that went to Ted Cruz back in '12 when she retired. Note that Cornyn (or, as our local talk guy Michael Berry calls him, John Wayne McCornyn) supported Cruz's opponent (Dewhurst), who was truly a low-down dirty snake. That's why it's hard to primary-out GOP guys here. They tend to have their seats for as long as they continue to want them.
Sounds way too passive and unlikely to happen if we just sit on our hands. Also, Texas has some nasty statist/crony habits that might overwhelm a freedom pioneer. Sounds like we need to recruit someone SUPER pro-gun and push him. At the VERY least, it might hold Cornyn's feet to the fire- get national reciprocity (in some form) passed, or we WILL primary you with someone. I believe in politically/primary threatening politicians who you want something out of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckdc View Post
Another guy who could stand to go is Culberson, who is my current Rep. Like his stands on Second Amendment issues, but otherwise, he's a big spender who has been there far too long. The main reason he keeps his spot is that he is bought and paid for by the NRA. Not a BAD thing, per se, but we could do better, and may need to at the next redistricting. This area is getting more competitive as it gains minority residents. Houston is changing as certain neighborhoods rise and fall, and this one has some areas that are becoming more low-income and minority, and they tend to vote for creatures like the ever-despicable Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Mmm. That sounds even MORE like drafting a candidate is important. Texas is the kind of place that can get complacent about how conservative they are, then get taken by a democrat. Still, the question is how much political capital there is. For me, the 2nd amendment is my TOP issue, along with some issues that never are campaigned on anyway. We're facing a demographic wave that's going to be hard to deal with as things are stacked now, so forcing Texas to constitutional carry is VERY important to get young minorities used to the idea of freedom and liking it. It's that much more important to present a minority millenial GUNZ cohort to fight the California minority millenial MUH STATISM cohort. So honestly, it's VERY important to get pro-gun, pro-access legislation passed quickly to virally take on California and New York before they invade and flip other states, bringing down our pro-gun majority.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 03-11-2017, 5:37 PM
mootman mootman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 46
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noranjen View Post
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
I sent the NRA (lifetime member) an email stating the same thing!
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 03-20-2017, 10:51 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
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
3 weeks later, 6 more co-sponsors: 36.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 03-20-2017 at 11:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 03-20-2017, 11:16 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,321
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
3 weeks later, 6 more co-sponsors: 36.
This is about how many co sponsors the 2016 Senate version had. May pick up a few more but that's about it.
The rubber meets the road when they actually start trying to pass it instead of letting it sit in its current status (doing nothing other than gaining co-sponsors).
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 03-21-2017, 7:28 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: 12,618
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Bill Gore runs the show here in San Diego. No CCW's for us.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-06-2017, 5:12 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,051
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
3 weeks later, 6 more co-sponsors: 36.
Two plus weeks later and still stuck at 36 co-sponsors....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
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 12:14 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.