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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1361  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:37 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riflehunter View Post
Say it passes but with this amendment that it only applies to resident licenses, it seems to me that either way this would put lots of pressure on this state to go to shall issue. Can you imagine the outrage if every tom dick n harry fron other states can carry and we who live here cant? Am I wrong?
OR...

California goes the other way and eliminates CCW completely. That is the only way they can completely invalidate the law.
2nd up would be an expansion of gun-free zones to 1 mile around any K-12 and eliminate the CCW exemption, effectively limiting California CCW to rural areas.
__________________
- 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.
  #1362  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:48 PM
Trump1's Avatar
Trump1 Trump1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 279
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

"In 2013, Cornyn [who introduced S.446] got support for his bill from 13 Democrats, including seven who are still in the Senate. He would need their support and more to pass the measure with a 60-vote majority, considering Republicans have 52 senators in the chamber."

Here's the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...cates.amp.html
  #1363  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:48 PM
mtngun mtngun is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

resurrected from slumber...
Link to Congress Site<-Link to action
This allows ccw holders to legally carry across state lines.
I don't believe it will do any good to ask our US Senators to support the Senate Version. I base this on my prior experience writhing them, only to receive canned responses contrary to supporting our rights.
  #1364  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:56 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 897
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I did the vote math based off the 2013 Senate Vote on National Reciprocity.

Here is the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The bill will not pass. We need 60 votes, and the best case situation for us is that we get ALL of the Dems from last time to join ALL of the Republicans for a total of 58. I expect we'll probably only get about 55 because several senators will change their minds just to #RESIST.

Feel free to correct my math if I'm missing something, but I'm not expecting McCaskill, Hassan, or Brown to have a sudden moment of enlightenment. If we had taken Reed's seat in NV and also kept Ayotte in NH (she lost by 0.1%), then maybe with a lot of praying we would have a chance. Don't get your hopes up.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't get excited for 2019 either. Most of the seats we have a chance at flipping are Democrats who previously voted yes on this bill. We'll likely replace McCaskill in MO for +1 vote, but Heller has a tough race in NV and could lose his seat for -1 vote. We would need to replace Brown in OH, Baldwin in WI, and Nelson in FL just to have a real shot at 60 votes. And even then, it would rely on one or both of the New Mexico senators to come through one last time for us. Most likely, they just bail when the chips are down and keep us short of 60 again. 2021 looks even more grim. What we REALLY need is another seat on the Supreme Court to vote in our favor.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand

Last edited by Luieburger; 12-06-2017 at 8:34 PM..
  #1365  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:58 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trump1 View Post
"In 2013, Cornyn [who introduced S.446] got support for his bill from 13 Democrats, including seven who are still in the Senate. He would need their support and more to pass the measure with a 60-vote majority, considering Republicans have 52 senators in the chamber."
In 2013, those 13 democrats and all of the Rinos knew that they had a POTUS who would veto it.
__________________
- 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.
  #1366  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:24 PM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
If you have the right to carry without a permit in your state of residence, you may carry in any other state that has a law that permits CCW.
hypothetical

in the past i've applied for a CCW in my State, been denied, no criminal record, just denied based on where i live, let's say in city in CA that allows applying but denies practically everyone who applies

could there be a legal argument that i DON'T have a right to carry in my State, there is even a denial on my record when I applied for a CCW

could this be a gray area argument for who can get reciprocity and who can't, based on that fact you can't get a CCW where you live in the State

seems like someone could say i don't fit the criteria under the law, because i can't get a CCW here
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm."

Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM."


Quote:
Originally Posted by someoneeasy View Post
I got eager cuz I love me some 20"
  #1367  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:29 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,632
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
hypothetical

in the past i've applied for a CCW in my State, been denied, no criminal record, just denied based on where i live, let's say in city in CA that allows applying but denies practically everyone who applies

could there be a legal argument that i DON'T have a right to carry in my State, there is even a denial on my record when I applied for a CCW

could this be a gray area argument for who can get reciprocity and who can't, based on that fact you can't get a CCW where you live in the State

seems like someone could say i don't fit the criteria under the law, because i can't get a CCW here
I believe the way the law is currently written If the state issues any CCWs (even one) they have to except all out of state permits. As long as you can qualify for any states CCW/LCH you are good.

But if it get changed to needing one from your resident state you are toast. But it would be hard for your county to justify not issuing if every out of Stateer can carry.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


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

Last edited by 71MUSTY; 12-06-2017 at 8:31 PM..
  #1368  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:31 PM
Trump1's Avatar
Trump1 Trump1 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 279
iTrader: 2 / 75%
Default

@71MUSTY, I believe you're correct even if one lives in Los Angeles County.
  #1369  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:39 PM
FalconLair's Avatar
FalconLair FalconLair is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Summerlin, NV.
Posts: 2,740
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
You're reading it wrong.

"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"
kind of my point in the hypothetical i posted above - clearly someone could argue im not entitled????
__________________
Yesterday the Devil whispered in my ear, "You're not strong enough to weather the storm."

Today I whispered in the Devil's ear, "I AM THE STORM."


Quote:
Originally Posted by someoneeasy View Post
I got eager cuz I love me some 20"
  #1370  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:58 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FalconLair View Post
hypothetical

in the past i've applied for a CCW in my State, been denied, no criminal record, just denied based on where i live, let's say in city in CA that allows applying but denies practically everyone who applies

could there be a legal argument that i DON'T have a right to carry in my State, there is even a denial on my record when I applied for a CCW
I'm not talking about that, perhaps my use of the term "right" was not the best.

The question and my answer was about residents of Con-Carry states, such as VT, which does not issue at all.
The way the House bill is written, if you have a CCW OR your state allows you to carry without a permit, then you do not need a permit to carry in any state.

A Californian would need *A* permit (whether CA, AZ, whatever) and would be good in at least 49 states. Whether they would be good in CA on an AZ non-res remains to be hashed out. Hudson's stated legislative intent is that an AZ non-res would be valid in 50 states. The Congressional Summary minces some of the phrasing and indicates not.
__________________
- 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.
  #1371  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:09 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,571
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Why couldnt it be passed on a 51 vote simple majority like the tax bill and the attempted Obamacare repeal bill? They can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster if I remember correctly.
  #1372  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:15 PM
vaka's Avatar
vaka vaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 736
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked . Will this bill if passed in the senate as it was in the house allow non resident CCW permit holders to carry off roster hand guns ? Or will anyone carrying in the state of California have to carry roster type firearms?
__________________
Old problems are like dry poop, if you let the dry poop sit it doesn't smell but the minute you decide to stir the poop with a stick, the smell comes back. Moral of the story, Don't bring up old problems!
  #1373  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:22 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Guitar: The Deplorables
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Chino, CA
Posts: 29,259
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
Why couldnt it be passed on a 51 vote simple majority like the tax bill and the attempted Obamacare repeal bill? They can change the rules to eliminate the filibuster if I remember correctly.
They could, but if they do, and the dems take control in 2018, we're screwed. Double edged sword. So far, the "nuclear option" has only been used by either side for judicial appointments. Nobody wants to be responsible for opening the Pandora's Box that would eliminate the option to filibuster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaka View Post
Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked . Will this bill if passed in the senate as it was in the house allow non resident CCW permit holders to carry off roster hand guns ? Or will anyone carrying in the state of California have to carry roster type firearms?
People in California already don't have to carry on-roster handguns, depending on their county.

The issue to be hashed out is whether or not California AW and Magazine laws would apply to non-resident carry... a LOT of people in free states carry guns with threaded barrels.
Would this nullify magazine and AW restrictions in the few states that have them? It would apparently nullify the FOID and other "permit to own/possess" laws in states such as Hawaii, Illinois, and Ohio....

We simply don't know, and won't know until (and if) a senate version is passed and the two bills reconciled.
__________________
- 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.
  #1374  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:28 PM
ladiver ladiver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 139
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vaka View Post
Here’s a question I haven’t seen asked . Will this bill if passed in the senate as it was in the house allow non resident CCW permit holders to carry off roster hand guns ? Or will anyone carrying in the state of California have to carry roster type firearms?
I think if your IA restricts you to rostered pistols, you are screwed. On that note, I know Orange County allows off roster pistols. Only catch is that pistol must be registered to you. I am not aware of any IA that required pistols be o the roster.
  #1375  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:29 PM
FailedAngrMgmt's Avatar
FailedAngrMgmt FailedAngrMgmt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 327
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Talking

https://www.congress.gov/congression...use-report/433

look specifically at role call #4.

4. An amendment offered by Ms. Lofgren to require that
permit holders acquire concealed carry permits in their home
state was defeated by a roll call vote of 8 to 17.


seems pretty cut and dry to me, they wouldn't be asking for this amendment to be added if the law was already written to be home state ccws only... AZ non-resident ccw is good enough for CA residents to carry in CA.

and open carry is already banned in CA, we couldn't challenge that as a 2A violation because we could still get a ccw. if they ban ccw as well, i believe that would make for an easy win in court for us and our 2A rights.
__________________
Time to nut up, or shut up.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
  #1376  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:32 PM
ladiver ladiver is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 139
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Like CokeBottle mentioned, it will be interesting to see how standard capacity magazines are treated. If I can legally carry a threaded barrel with a 17 round magazine on my state issued permit, then I (technically) should be OK with carrying that same weapon in California.
  #1377  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:38 PM
pierat pierat is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: SD
Posts: 15
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
OR...

California goes the other way and eliminates CCW completely. That is the only way they can completely invalidate the law.
2nd up would be an expansion of gun-free zones to 1 mile around any K-12 and eliminate the CCW exemption, effectively limiting California CCW to rural areas.
I'm not so concerned CA will eliminate CCW, didn't federal court force Illinois to provide CCW in 2013? What I would be concerned about is ridiculous new rules as to where you can carry that make it so hard to abide by the law, you just leave your gun at home. Frankly, I'm surprised CA hasn't already done that a long time ago.
  #1378  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:08 PM
ColdDeadHands1's Avatar
ColdDeadHands1 ColdDeadHands1 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 3,205
iTrader: 67 / 100%
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Tying it to Fix NICS tells me there’s a deal. Even if there’s not, it puts Dem senators (particularly those in red states) in a tough spot. If they filibuster, then they “opposed fixing background checks for gun purchases.”

I’m going to guess that the NICS provisions mean that there isn’t a filibuster, and it gets out of the Senate as a 51 vote bill.
This is the golden key to passage!!!!!! Libs have been screaming for years about background checks. Now the fix NICS bill is there. They can't afford the negative publicity of shooting it down. The repubs have created the perfect trap! I'm dusting off my three non resident licenses and oiling my holsters as I type!
__________________


"Let me guess... This isn't about the alcohol or tobacco?"
  #1379  
Old 12-07-2017, 5:26 AM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 699
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
I did the vote math based off the 2013 Senate Vote on National Reciprocity.

Here is the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The bill will not pass. We need 60 votes, and the best case situation for us is that we get ALL of the Dems from last time to join ALL of the Republicans for a total of 58. I expect we'll probably only get about 55 because several senators will change their minds just to #RESIST.

Feel free to correct my math if I'm missing something, but I'm not expecting McCaskill, Hassan, or Brown to have a sudden moment of enlightenment. If we had taken Reed's seat in NV and also kept Ayotte in NH (she lost by 0.1%), then maybe with a lot of praying we would have a chance. Don't get your hopes up.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't get excited for 2019 either. Most of the seats we have a chance at flipping are Democrats who previously voted yes on this bill. We'll likely replace McCaskill in MO for +1 vote, but Heller has a tough race in NV and could lose his seat for -1 vote. We would need to replace Brown in OH, Baldwin in WI, and Nelson in FL just to have a real shot at 60 votes. And even then, it would rely on one or both of the New Mexico senators to come through one last time for us. Most likely, they just bail when the chips are down and keep us short of 60 again. 2021 looks even more grim. What we REALLY need is another seat on the Supreme Court to vote in our favor.
This all assumes that Dems are willing to fillibuster Fix NICS. The minority doesn’t automatically fillibuster every single bill that the majority is trying to advance.

With Fix NICS attached, there’s a real possibility that the Dems don’t fillibuster, meaning it needs just 51 votes (50 Senators plus Pence).
  #1380  
Old 12-07-2017, 6:27 AM
AdamVIP AdamVIP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 290
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
I did the vote math based off the 2013 Senate Vote on National Reciprocity.

Here is the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The bill will not pass. We need 60 votes, and the best case situation for us is that we get ALL of the Dems from last time to join ALL of the Republicans for a total of 58. I expect we'll probably only get about 55 because several senators will change their minds just to #RESIST.

Feel free to correct my math if I'm missing something, but I'm not expecting McCaskill, Hassan, or Brown to have a sudden moment of enlightenment. If we had taken Reed's seat in NV and also kept Ayotte in NH (she lost by 0.1%), then maybe with a lot of praying we would have a chance. Don't get your hopes up.

EDIT: Also, I wouldn't get excited for 2019 either. Most of the seats we have a chance at flipping are Democrats who previously voted yes on this bill. We'll likely replace McCaskill in MO for +1 vote, but Heller has a tough race in NV and could lose his seat for -1 vote. We would need to replace Brown in OH, Baldwin in WI, and Nelson in FL just to have a real shot at 60 votes. And even then, it would rely on one or both of the New Mexico senators to come through one last time for us. Most likely, they just bail when the chips are down and keep us short of 60 again. 2021 looks even more grim. What we REALLY need is another seat on the Supreme Court to vote in our favor.
I hate the results but thanks for doing the effort and putting my hopes back into reality.
  #1381  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:18 AM
flhxxx's Avatar
flhxxx flhxxx is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: San Jose, California
Posts: 746
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I am curious how this all plays out.. I am a dual state resident, I have a Florida Drivers License and Resident Concealed Carry Permit and a California ID Card. I have a home and business in Florida and Home and Job in California. I split time between both, about 50/50..
  #1382  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:56 AM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 897
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
This all assumes that Dems are willing to fillibuster Fix NICS. The minority doesn’t automatically fillibuster every single bill that the majority is trying to advance.

With Fix NICS attached, there’s a real possibility that the Dems don’t fillibuster, meaning it needs just 51 votes (50 Senators plus Pence).
Considering only ~6 Democrats in the House voted for their bill, I highly doubt the Democrats in the Senate are going to let this one just glide through.

Stop giving us hope!!!! I'm trying to manage expectations
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
  #1383  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:59 AM
BennyAdeline's Avatar
BennyAdeline BennyAdeline is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 832
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladiver View Post
Like CokeBottle mentioned, it will be interesting to see how standard capacity magazines are treated. If I can legally carry a threaded barrel with a 17 round magazine on my state issued permit, then I (technically) should be OK with carrying that same weapon in California.
Hmmmmmmmmm. That would be neato, but I feel like we’d get boned somehow.
__________________
"Never weep, let them play,
Old violence is not too old to beget new values."

-Robinson Jeffers
  #1384  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:29 AM
I take shots I take shots is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 49
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the magazine ban etc. would still be in effect. even if you had a permit from another state, you'd have to carry a gun that wasn't banned in this state.

For precedence think of vehicles. You can't legally drive a car with a tinted windshield into California even though it's legal in some states, and those states vehicle and drivers licenses are valid here. Same with motorcycle riders, they have to put on a helmet before entering the state.

I see no reason to think CCW would be any different.

On that same note, I'd expect the restrictions on your permit would carry over. You would you be limited to your 3 weapons (if you had that limit) even in a state that had no limit if you were operating "under" your permit. In states that don't require a permit, or if you had a second permit that wasn't limited you could probably ignore the restriction. This would be like a restriction on your drivers license.
  #1385  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:40 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,632
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by I take shots View Post
I think the magazine ban etc. would still be in effect. even if you had a permit from another state, you'd have to carry a gun that wasn't banned in this state.

For precedence think of vehicles. You can't legally drive a car with a tinted windshield into California even though it's legal in some states, and those states vehicle and drivers licenses are valid here. Same with motorcycle riders, they have to put on a helmet before entering the state.

I see no reason to think CCW would be any different.

On that same note, I'd expect the restrictions on your permit would carry over. You would you be limited to your 3 weapons (if you had that limit) even in a state that had no limit if you were operating "under" your permit. In states that don't require a permit, or if you had a second permit that wasn't limited you could probably ignore the restriction. This would be like a restriction on your drivers license.
Read this, which explains why you are likely wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
This is incorrect, there is no text in the bill indicate this forces those who carry in a state to conform to that state's laws regarding type of firearm carried or magazine capacity.
The text of the bill actually specifically covers magazines and ammunition as a "handgun" to be protected under this law:
15 ‘‘(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine
16 for use in a handgun
and any ammunition loaded
17 into the handgun or its magazine.
Section (b) outlines the limits upon which a state may exert it's local laws in relation to this bill:
16 ‘‘(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede
17 or limit the laws of any State that—
18 ‘‘(1) permit private persons or entities to pro-
19 hibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms
20 on their property; or
21 ‘‘(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of fire-
22 arms on any State or local government property, in-
23 stallation, building, base, or park.
Section (c) says that if someone complies with sections (a) (carry requirements) and section (b) (allowable state restrictions), this person may not be arrested or detained for violation of any of that state's rules or laws regarding possession or transportation or carrying of firearms:
24 ‘‘(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed
25 handgun
in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may
1 not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any
2 law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political
3 subdivision thereof related to the possession, transpor-
4 tation, or carrying of firearms
unless there is probable
5 cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner
6 not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially
7 valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima
8 facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit
9 as required by this section.
This bill specifically protects someone who carries under its provisions against a states laws regarding type of firearm and type of magazine AND type of ammo.

The only valid criticism of this aspect of the bill that I have seen is that there is no illicit protection against confiscation, only against detainment and arrest. Although it could also be argued that this protection is implicit.

Edit: Bolded relevant text for clarity on this point.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
  #1386  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:43 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

House passes the greatest expansion of gun rights since the founding of the country and immediately there is a school shooting in New Mexico... I'm sure that's just a coincidence though.
  #1387  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:56 AM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Commiefornia
Posts: 4,442
iTrader: 92 / 100%
Default

If having to have a ccw from your home state is required, the excitement over this bill is moot for many of us in non issue counties. If being able to use a UT non res here is possible, awesome. If nothing else, at least there is some progress, or an attempt thereof, expanding the 2A.
__________________
*PSE Archery* *Gold Tip Arrows* *Riptide Code Red* *Magnus Broadheads* *Scott Release* *Archery Shack bowstrings* *Trophy Ridge bow sights* *Bee Stinger* *Vortex Optics* *EXO Mountain*
  #1388  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:58 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,632
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG View Post
If having to have a ccw from your home state is required, the excitement over this bill is moot for many of us in non issue counties. If being able to use a UT non res here is possible, awesome. If nothing else, at least there is some progress, or an attempt thereof, expanding the 2A.
People keep saying this. Have you not read this thread??
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.
  #1389  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:06 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Since this little fact has been buried page's ago...

14 Democrat Senate seats are up for re-election in 18.. they are in Trump won states.. If they filibuster this or vote ney, there is a chance they loose thier seat...

Remain hopeful and burn the Senate phones...

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
  #1390  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:13 AM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,543
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When is the next vote?
  #1391  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:18 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
When is the next vote?
Unscheduled, it's up to the Senate and it's subcommittees to schedule and vote on the bill.
  #1392  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:29 AM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 897
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Since this little fact has been buried page's ago...

14 Democrat Senate seats are up for re-election in 18.. they are in Trump won states.. If they filibuster this or vote ney, there is a chance they loose thier seat...

Remain hopeful and burn the Senate phones...
Well... Franken is out in MN, so in 2018 Minnesotans will select TWO senators, not just one. Franken leaving gives us +1 opportunity to turn Blue anti-reciprocity seat Red. That alone is something to get excited about.
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
  #1393  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:35 AM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Luieburger View Post
Well... Franken is out in MN, so in 2018 Minnesotans will select TWO senators, not just one. Franken leaving gives us +1 opportunity to turn Blue anti-reciprocity seat Red. That alone is something to get excited about.
Very true... with all of the shenanigans the Dems have been caught doing, they may loose seats on that alone..
Considering Moore is up and expecting to win Alabama despite his allegations.
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA

Last edited by gobler; 12-07-2017 at 12:02 PM..
  #1394  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:50 AM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
California goes the other way and eliminates CCW completely. That is the only way they can completely invalidate the law.
I think this would be unfeasible due to the majority of counties accepting self-defense as good cause, and the same logic that overturned the IL ban would apply.

The latter would have to be litigated, but would likely be upheld one way or another by the 9th CA by some fanciful lawyering, which would fail if it got to SCOTUS...another "if".

Given the fanaticism of our solons here and elsewhere (Pelosi might say people who want to carry "don't have a place here"), it would not surprise me to see this happen.
  #1395  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:55 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Very true... with all of the shenanigans the Dems have been caught doing, they may loose seats on that alone..
Considering Moore is up and expecting to win Arkansas despite his allegations.
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
Alabama, not Arkansas
  #1396  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:58 AM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 132
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryS View Post
would likely be upheld one way or another by the 9th CA by some fanciful lawyering
I wouldn't say fanciful lawyering is the right word you were looking for, the lawyers are doing very little actual work. The judges have the fix in before the CA DOJ ever says a thing.
  #1397  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:58 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 12,960
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Considering Moore is up and expecting to win Arkansas despite his allegations.
Now, that would be a major accomplishment if he managed anything of the kind...
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
  #1398  
Old 12-07-2017, 12:01 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,683
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Alabama, not Arkansas
I stand corrected. I will edit my post.

"The 2nd Amendment is a right, not a suggestion"
__________________
Quote:
The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
  #1399  
Old 12-07-2017, 2:00 PM
D32134534 D32134534 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 2
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Was this link shown in this thread already?

Was this link shown in this thread already?

Gun Owners of America (GOA) observed, “It is almost certain to us that we — today — have the 218 votes (out of 435) we need in order to pass H.R. 38 in the House. In the Senate, we believe we’re close to the 60 votes we need to break a filibuster. Bottom line: There is no reason that we should wait to move this legislation through the House.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...porters-house/

I know this article and quote was written months ago now and things may have changed. But I'm hoping that behind closed doors negotiations have already occurred and the Senate really will have 60 votes as-needed. The NRA is greasing pockets for this big push, after all. I'm praying it goes through.

I'm also literally praying that if all of this goes through then California is forced to accept non-resident concealed carry permits as well... I live in a crappy area that I can't afford to move away from just yet. In the last year I've been shot at while driving down the street, almost held up one time but thank God a cop cruiser turned the corner at the same moment and the loser ran away, and another day I went outside and my windshield was shot (to my knowledge I haven't pissed anyone off in that area either, I keep my head down). A very young girl was shot and killed very close to me on the street last year. NONE of that is not enough to qualify me to the right to carry my own firearm outside, even to and from my car.

On the down-low (some of you may not believe this but I'd swear it's true and these officers will remain nameless), but I've had local officers even tell me that they couldn't speak for their whole department or in official capacity, if I conceal carried only near my home and I ever came across them and immediately told them I was carrying and surrendered my weapon if asked, then they wouldn't give me any trouble over it. It is THAT bad in my area, and even many of the police are pro-citizen-conceal-carry.

Worst-case, I could carry my own pistol outside and it's a misdemeanor to carry it if I really want to defend myself with my own weapon...but I'm a law-abiding citizen so I STILL won't ever take it outside on my person unless non-resident carry finally goes through... San Diego County is politically disgusting; they'd rather the bad guy shoot you than there be "another gun on the street" even if it's a law-abiding citizen carrying it (because NO ONE can be trusted with a gun in California apparently). I'm honestly disgusted with how this state and county that I live in operates. One day if I ever do get gunned down just minding my own business, I hope and pray that it wasn't for nothing and people read about it in the news and finally take a big stand out here for everyone's 2A rights.

Then again, preventable self-defense tragedies happen in CA / San Diego county every day and not enough people seem to care. Anyone with a gun is a problem, right? Bad guys follow all of these ridiculously restrictive laws like the rest of us law-abiding folks do, right? Whew! All these anti-gun laws REALLY keep guns out of the hands out of California felons and bad-guys and it makes me feel SO safe! Yippeee
  #1400  
Old 12-07-2017, 2:25 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,769
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DolphinFan View Post
I'm not so sure about that.



I think, (hope), the Republicans will change the rules to pass the legislation.

If there were ever a time to use the nuclear option it is now.

They can pass it with 51 votes IF they want to.
You're right, but the nuclear option is a HORRIBLE idea. People throw that idea around flippantly and it is dangerous thinking. The Democrats gave birth to this overly stupid idea.

So we get gun rights today to lose them permanently tomorrow. Mortgaging the future. Lame.

The Republicans have handed in back to the Democrats in spades on the judicial appointments.

1. The Democrats started it due to the Republicans blocking absolutely everything.

2. The Republicans complained at the time , and now have been given the chance to reverse the nuclear option. To no one's surprise, they didn't. For all their bravado, they suck just like the Dems. Their chance to restore integrity and they get the epic fail.

3. If we expand the nuclear option we endanger ourselves. Imagine a new semi-auto ban (all guns, not just rifles) that gets forced through on a 51 vote? We could end up there in 2020 and the Republicans will have no way to stop it.


One must understand the rules of the Senate are there for a reason. To protect the minority. That is US! Right now and we could be even further the minority in the future. Let's not be stupid here.

Politicians count on an uneducated electorate that do not understand why rules and protections are in place. I refuse to play in to that.
Closed Thread

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 10:37 AM.




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 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.