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
  #81  
Old 09-05-2018, 5:54 AM
rplaw rplaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Sounds like an operator operating operationally.

Make sure you get the CCW badge and sash and you're good to go.
You forgot to mention tactical.
__________________
Some random thoughts:

Evil doesn't only come in black.

Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise!

There is no "I" in Team; no "Me" in sports; no "You" in life. However, there's a ton of "Wheeeeee!" on roller coasters.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 09-05-2018, 8:51 AM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,792
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
And so...what is wrong with background checks? Do you not want to take at least a minimal step to insure that some lunatic or terrorista doesn't waltz into a store, buy whatever, and walk out and shoot up the local mall a few minutes later screaming "they're coming to take me away!!!!" And training...do you not want some assurance that the person packing that .45 actually knows how to use it? Here's what I'd go for..instead of separate checks for purchase and carrying, how 'bout doing the check when purchasing, and the mandatory training program comes along with the purchase..pass it, and pick up your firearm...now, if you have a DD 214, or other cert demonstrating your proficiency with firearms, the training can be bypassed...and once that course is passed, you do not have to take it over again with every purchase. All the arguments that the states use to deny carry permits are answered....background checks, and training. Of course, in a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment is all the permit I need to carry...but in a perfect world, we would not need to carry firearms for protection...
Seems to me that the states with the more restrictive laws have significantly higher issues with firearms than those with less restrictive laws.

Criminals do not obey firearms laws.

Nothing I can find in the Constitution in regard to background checks, training, or carrying a gun.

On the other side, states which enjoy constitutional carry have statistically low rates of gun violence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rplaw View Post
You forgot to mention tactical.
My apologies...I forgot I was on calguns.net.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 09-05-2018, 11:31 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,665
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
And so...what is wrong with background checks? Do you not want to take at least a minimal step to insure that some lunatic or terrorista doesn't waltz into a store, buy whatever, and walk out and shoot up the local mall a few minutes later screaming "they're coming to take me away!!!!" And training...do you not want some assurance that the person packing that .45 actually knows how to use it? Here's what I'd go for..instead of separate checks for purchase and carrying, how 'bout doing the check when purchasing, and the mandatory training program comes along with the purchase..pass it, and pick up your firearm...now, if you have a DD 214, or other cert demonstrating your proficiency with firearms, the training can be bypassed...and once that course is passed, you do not have to take it over again with every purchase. All the arguments that the states use to deny carry permits are answered....background checks, and training. Of course, in a perfect world, the 2nd Amendment is all the permit I need to carry...but in a perfect world, we would not need to carry firearms for protection...
If a person buys their gun from a gun store they'll undergo a background check. OK by me if they choose to acquire a gun that way. If they buy from a private person they may or may not - fine with me also. What folks don't consider when they do the reflexive "what can it hurt?" is that the state ought to be required to show a public safety benefit. Not a theoretical benefit but an actual. Anyone able to provide that data?

Is there any other individual right, the exercise of which requires pre-approval from the government? Why do we accept the government can go directly to what amounts to the prior restraint of an individual right based on nothing more than supposition? While acknowledging unlawful use of guns is a problem, Heller clearly stated that cannot be used as an excuse to infringe on a constitutional right.

As an aside, I already own guns - why should i have to undergo ANY background check - where's the public safety benefit requiring me to do that for my 150th, 151st, etc gun?

I have 4 CCWs, 2 of which required some sort of training - the classes were useless. My 87 year old Mother could have passed them. She did in fact, pass the same MA LTC class as me. She's no more capable now than before the class. In fact, the classes are perfunctory and impart little or no proficiency. They're used mostly to satisfy political whims in states that tend to be "shall issue". Were the thesis accurate, that background and training facilitated restrictive states allowing CCW CA would be happy to issue them. But it doesn't work that way.

Last edited by dfletcher; 09-06-2018 at 12:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 09-06-2018, 5:27 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,792
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Tks for a major dose of reality...

Once again, someone is either part of the problem, or part of the solution.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 09-09-2018, 8:42 AM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Seems to me that the states with the more restrictive laws have significantly higher issues with firearms than those with less restrictive laws.

Criminals do not obey firearms laws.

Nothing I can find in the Constitution in regard to background checks, training, or carrying a gun.

On the other side, states which enjoy constitutional carry have statistically low rates of gun violence.



My apologies...I forgot I was on calguns.net.
All true...I am not claiming that any of this was in the constitution... I am suggesting that bg checks be performed to at least try and prevent those that ought not to be in possession of firearms from acquiring them...at least from the LGS... Training? Agree...the CCW classes are mostly useless, except for some of the legal theory (using roll you owns vs store bought ammo...the lawyers in the wrongful death suit will eat you alive). The training I am referring to is the actual safe, proficient operation of the firearm.. I for one (will say it again) want the person carrying a firearm near me and my family to be at least well versed in the safe operation of said firearm. IMO, I am most concerned with the public streets becoming a free fire zone with no checks on who can and cannot possess firearms....having said that, every day that goes by in those constitutional carry states with no wild west shoot-outs proves me wrong...and that's ok too... Criminals will always get guns if they choose...now, how do we prevent those with mental issues from acquiring firearms ala Parkland etc,. As Otto V Bismarck (my favorite politican) was alleged to have said..."Sausages and politics..two things one does not want to see how they are made"... Just trying to suggest some ways to do some horse trading to get this 50 state carry process in place...insteadof this hodge-podge of state to state bull****..."am I legal here, or not?"

Last edited by ulmapache; 09-09-2018 at 7:35 PM.. Reason: add content
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 09-09-2018, 9:33 AM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,005
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Both concern an unenumerated right that have been historically regulated as a State function - as have 2A rights.

A better analogy was the Voting Rights Act where recalcitrant States who had historically denied voting rights were prevented form taking any action impacting voting without Federal clearance. But there was no "Federal" voter registration or election management.

I have often suggested that Federal "floor" legislation would be appropriate. States like CA should NOT be allowed to legislate on guns until they can demonstrate a lack of animus and a commitment to upholding liberty, a true nexus between the proposed legislation and public safety and tailoring without simply infringing in an attempt to kill off the exercise.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:11 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 877
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
[snip] IMO, I am most concerned with the public streets becoming a free fire zone with no checks on who can and cannot possess firearms....
You mean like Dem stronghold cities and states with restrictive gun laws?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
having said that, every day that goes by in those constitutional carry states with no wild west shoot-outs proves me wrong...and that's ok too...
Shocking, isn't it

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
Criminals will always get guns if they choose...now, how do we prevent those with mental issues from acquiring firearms ala Parkland etc,.[snip]
Surely your suggestion isn't "more laws"? Criminals and mentally unstable are two sides of the same coin, those intent on doing harm to others will find a way, no matter what restrictions are in place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
[snip] Just trying to suggest some ways to do some horse trading to get this 50 state carry process in place...insteadof this hodge-podge of state to state bull****..."am I legal here, or not?"
No more "trades", gun rights never end up with a fair slice of the pie.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:20 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Parkland murderer passed a background check because Obama era PROMISE program paid school administration millions to NOT report criminal behavior occurring by government school attendees !
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...students.html#!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown

Last edited by ja308; 09-09-2018 at 10:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 09-09-2018, 10:25 AM
ajb78's Avatar
ajb78 ajb78 is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: San Leandro
Posts: 877
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
Parkland murderer passed a background check because Obama era PROMISE program paid school administration millions to NOT report criminal behavior occurring by government school attendees !
Thank you for bringing this up, that slipped my mind. I was too focused on the general "mental issues" part of his statement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 09-09-2018, 7:24 PM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

ja308 and ajb78... LOL!!!!! Ja, that was something I was going to bring up...the massive failure by the state in the Parkland shooting, and the Texas church shooting...both were able to acquire firearms legally, because the "state" did not do their duty. And no, I am not suggesting more laws that will do no good...they cannot enforce the ones they have now... Ja, if we do not try to be part of the solution, we are part of the problem... I think that it will take a SCOTUS case in which someone gets arrested for illegal firearms possession in another state that does not recognize anyone elses CCW permit,or constitutional carry... The ideal case would be for someone from a constitutional carry state and possessing a CCW permit from another state (Utah?) travel to say Calif, or NY, get arrested, and push the case all the way to SCOTUS...don't know the legal finangling to have the case presented so that the terms "keep" and "bear" are defined in the eyes of the law...but IMO, that's what will have to happen. Probably would be on a level of Cooper v. Aaron...All the other avenues such as states rights, federal supremacy, commerce clause etc are going to have to take a back seat...I do not see any of these going anywhere with respect to natl CCW reciprocity.. BTW..I am a CCW permit holder for 25+ years in Cal...but do not reside there anymore. Now, if someone would volunteer to support a case like this (and my legal fees), I would volunteer to be the one who gets arrested...

Last edited by ulmapache; 09-09-2018 at 7:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 09-17-2018, 7:17 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IIRC Congress the people’s representative’s have already passed national ccw.
Hopefully we can extend our lead during the midterm elections this November.

With a red wave it’s likely the senate will pass it too . President Trump has said he supports national ccw and will sign it.

For now it’s best to allocate money to help republicans in close races. Remember folks just because TV ads have zero effect on us , doesn’t mean we can afford to ignore it .

Just saying there are too many mindless drones who will be influenced by TV ads.
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 09-17-2018, 2:26 PM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
[snip] Just trying to suggest some ways to do some horse trading to get this 50 state carry process in place...insteadof this hodge-podge of state to state bull****..."am I legal here, or not?"
No more "trades", gun rights never end up with a fair slice of the pie.

Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen

Otto v Bismarck
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 09-17-2018, 8:08 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulmapache View Post
[snip] Just trying to suggest some ways to do some horse trading to get this 50 state carry process in place...insteadof this hodge-podge of state to state bull****..."am I legal here, or not?"
No more "trades", gun rights never end up with a fair slice of the pie.

Die Politik ist die Lehre vom Möglichen

Otto v Bismarck
I don't know if you have read this entire thread from the start but it was brought out earlier that the thing that stands in the way of 50 state reciprocity is states rights. Unless all gun laws and self defense laws are moved to federal level with no chance of local override we will never have a real 50 state carry law that will protect all citizens in all states.
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 09-18-2018, 5:46 AM
ritter ritter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 123
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I don't know if you have read this entire thread from the start but it was brought out earlier that the thing that stands in the way of 50 state reciprocity is states rights. Unless all gun laws and self defense laws are moved to federal level with no chance of local override we will never have a real 50 state carry law that will protect all citizens in all states.
Didn't the McDonald decision do this by incorporating Heller against the states?
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:06 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Didn't the McDonald decision do this by incorporating Heller against the states?
Yes but some states just ignore the decision and that is the problem, until the states are no longer able to ignore the 2nd amendment and make their own laws instead there can be no 50 state carry law that would benefit all citizens in all states.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 09-18-2018, 11:25 AM
ulmapache's Avatar
ulmapache ulmapache is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 113
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I don't know if you have read this entire thread from the start but it was brought out earlier that the thing that stands in the way of 50 state reciprocity is states rights. Unless all gun laws and self defense laws are moved to federal level with no chance of local override we will never have a real 50 state carry law that will protect all citizens in all states.
I'm thinking on the SCOTUS decision in Cooper vs Aaron is the operative case to carry this out...
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 09-21-2018, 8:09 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A red wave this election cycle could very well bring us to national ccw !
I’m thinking the states rights folks didn’t do very well with separate but equal !

Just saying we have a president who will mix it up with big media and democrats!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:22 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My prayers are that Young v. Hawaii makes it to the SCOTUS. They confirm thay open carry is a right granted to all Individuals of the U.S. and U.S. territories but if the State (territory) wishes to grant a CCW at the expense of the State, they may do so as to not limit the right.

"The Tree of Liberty must be waterd from time to time with the blood of Tyrants and Patriots -
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
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 09-23-2018, 12:25 AM
winxp_man's Avatar
winxp_man winxp_man is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sack-Town
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 63 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drivedabizness View Post
Ironically, when the CA CONST was written they didn't include a RTKBA because they said no one would ever argue that people didn't have the right.

This is the reason why the 2ndA was even written in the first place. It was not put in there for debate or effen politics! It was put in to remind the now modern day aholes in office that we have a God given right to protect.... Life, Liberty, and the pursue of happiness. But I guess with the amounts the .gov has grown so has the amount of idiots.

Fact is........ There where things not up for debate yet they have become that because how else can you control the people of a country? Oh I know let me see take away their ability to defend life, liberty, and the pursue of happiness. And leave them to the only options they have left...... IE the jews of WWII.
__________________
Shoot to Kill not to Wound !


http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg48/winxp_man/MeShooting-1.jpg
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 09-23-2018, 5:11 AM
rromeo's Avatar
rromeo rromeo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Radford, VA
Posts: 6,227
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

There was a war about eliminating states' rights 158 years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 09-28-2018, 9:12 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonestargrizzly View Post
Idk if that would be the way to go.
Unless its actually amended into the constitution.
It already is.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 09-28-2018, 9:21 AM
EMP3 EMP3 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 203
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reciprocity is a red herring. CA would never, ever accept it.

I've been championing a national CCW law for years. It is the ONLY way that Californians can recover lost rights that we'll never regain w/o federal intervention.

Article VI PG II of the United States Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land.

A very simple national CCW law that references our Second Amendment would deny totalitarian states; e.g. CA, ANY ability to infringe upon our RIGHTS to keep and BEAR arms. That would end the handgun roster and magazine capacity limits.

Why hasn't the alleged Second Amendment defending Republicans passed a national CCW law? The answer is simple: most Republicans are not conservative. They're globalists who are selling us out (have sold us out???) to globalism, which implies destruction of America's sovereignty.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 09-28-2018, 11:34 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMP3 View Post
Reciprocity is a red herring. CA would never, ever accept it.

I've been championing a national CCW law for years. It is the ONLY way that Californians can recover lost rights that we'll never regain w/o federal intervention.

Article VI PG II of the United States Constitution makes it the supreme law of the land.

A very simple national CCW law that references our Second Amendment would deny totalitarian states; e.g. CA, ANY ability to infringe upon our RIGHTS to keep and BEAR arms. That would end the handgun roster and magazine capacity limits.

Why hasn't the alleged Second Amendment defending Republicans passed a national CCW law? The answer is simple: most Republicans are not conservative. They're globalists who are selling us out (have sold us out???) to globalism, which implies destruction of America's sovereignty.



I think because many Republicans embrace states rights and want a smaller Federal gov is the reason why states like CA and NJ can operate with open impunity to the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 09-28-2018, 5:45 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,792
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
[/B]

I think because many Republicans embrace states rights and want a smaller Federal gov is the reason why states like CA and NJ can operate with open impunity to the constitution.
I don't know anyone who's not in favor of a smaller government, especially the federal government. Unless I'm missing something,I don't see any advantage to a larger one.

If you've lived in the south, you already know that there are more than a few Demo senators who appreciate states' rights.

As for me, I'm in a constitutional carry state with an enhanced CWL that gives reciprocity with ~ 40 states.

You'll understand I don't plan to trade that simply because California, among others, either make getting a CWL license a major PITA, or will not issue a CWL.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 09-28-2018, 6:06 PM
RobinGoodfellow's Avatar
RobinGoodfellow RobinGoodfellow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

“Why not a federal CCW?”

Why not, indeed?
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 09-28-2018, 6:14 PM
RobinGoodfellow's Avatar
RobinGoodfellow RobinGoodfellow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 578
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

“Trump does not give a **** about the 2A, he likely never has and won't do a damned thing for us.“

Trump doesn’t strike me as a big second amendment supporter, but he knows who voted for him, and he will do things to get their approval.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 10-16-2018, 7:41 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobinGoodfellow View Post
“Trump does not give a **** about the 2A, he likely never has and won't do a damned thing for us.“

Trump doesn’t strike me as a big second amendment supporter, but he knows who voted for him, and he will do things to get their approval.
Trump is the most pro 2nd amendment president in my lifetime. Too bad you are not NRA or didn't hear him at our convention in Dallas this past May !

Then again maybe Im wrong about his support for RKBA. Please provide a few links so we can all reconsider our views. Or are you just a democrat type individual trying to undercut our support ?
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 10-16-2018, 9:34 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This is why federal CCW likely won't happen... and I don't blame people in free states for not wanting to agree to shrink their rights so we get some in CA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
As for me, I'm in a constitutional carry state with an enhanced CWL that gives reciprocity with ~ 40 states.

You'll understand I don't plan to trade that simply because California, among others, either make getting a CWL license a major PITA, or will not issue a CWL.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 10-16-2018, 10:07 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
This is why federal CCW likely won't happen... and I don't blame people in free states for not wanting to agree to shrink their rights so we get some in CA.
I have no info on anyone from a free state who is opposed to National CCW !

From what I understand most free state people want it in order to not get legally or otherwise trapped behind lines of state governments that are aligned with International Communist Forces !

This lady did everything right, she applied for a permit to buy a gun,waited past the 30 day requirement and was murdered.
https://gunowners.org/news06032016.htm

As of this date there has been no protection of this ****ty police chief who directly contributed to and facilitated her murder!

For the record President Trump favors a National CCW permit system!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand

"LIARS MAKE
THE BEST PROMISES"
Pierce Brown

Last edited by ja308; 10-16-2018 at 10:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:13 AM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 5,852
iTrader: 48 / 100%
Default

There needs to be a ruling that the states can not restrict the 2nd ammendment to bear arms. This has pitfalls. FIrst it would probably only cover open carry. Second and biggest hurdle would be that it would need to cover anywhere anytime. A big problem since .gov would never let an armed citizen enter their buildings out of fear said citizen would protect themself from domestic enemy. Finally the Fed should/could require that you first exhaust getting a CCW within your state. If denied then you would go to the Feds who would be required (by new law) to issue a CCW as long as a regular background check would allow you to buy a gun. No show cause etc just yep you are a citizen and not prohibited.
__________________

Last edited by M1NM; 10-16-2018 at 11:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 10-16-2018, 11:51 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
This is why federal CCW likely won't happen... and I don't blame people in free states for not wanting to agree to shrink their rights so we get some in CA.
A Federal CCW if done right would not in any way shrink rights of people in free states, in fact a Federal CCW would actually enhance the rights of people from a free state when they travel to a anti gun state. The real reason a Federal CCW won't likely happen is that in order for the CCW to work gun and self defense laws will have to taken away from the state and local level and regulated at the Federal level.

Bottom line many people from the President on down who claim to be pro gun are even more pro states rights and in anti gun states something has to be done about states rights first to be able to have a real working Federal CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 10-16-2018, 2:13 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

In my post #98 I state that if Young is upheld by the SCOTUS, this would force states to issue CCW permits to residents unless they want every one openly carrying a firearm. Visitors who do not have a Ca, NY etc CCW could openly carry in these states unless they accept out of state permits like drivers license. It really comes down to IF SCOTUS takes Young and how narrow the decision and opinions are.

For me this is the best Constitutional outcome.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 10-17-2018, 11:23 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,979
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

IIRC our republican led congress has already passed national ccw

After midterms depending on if we hold will be a great time to push senate!
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 10-17-2018, 4:48 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,792
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
I have no info on anyone from a free state who is opposed to National CCW !

From what I understand most free state people want it in order to not get legally or otherwise trapped behind lines of state governments that are aligned with International Communist Forces !

For the record President Trump favors a National CCW permit system!
Ok, let me give you some info from a very free CC (Constitutional Carry) state...

I'm fine with a nationwide CWL system, as long as it's not more restrictive than CC.

That said, I also went out and grabbed the Idaho enhanced CWL. It gives me the following benefits...

1. No NICS phone calls if I transfer to or from an 01 ffl.

2. Ability to carry in areas where CC is prohibited...ID state university facilities is one example.

3. In contacts with LE (last one was ~ 2 years ago for an expired plate tag) it identifies me as a more or less "good" guy.

4. I have reciprocity with ~ 40 other states.

I still prefer the status quo...I'll go for my Oregon concealed permit within the next month. In California, there's a loaded Colt Officers model in a Halliburton case on the passenger seat. I'd guess it might take <5 seconds to lock it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
A Federal CCW if done right would not in any way shrink rights of people in free states, in fact a Federal CCW would actually enhance the rights of people from a free state when they travel to a anti gun state. The real reason a Federal CCW won't likely happen is that in order for the CCW to work gun and self defense laws will have to taken away from the state and local level and regulated at the Federal level.

Bottom line many people from the President on down who claim to be pro gun are even more pro states rights and in anti gun states something has to be done about states rights first to be able to have a real working Federal CCW.
Other than California and Hawaii, I don't travel to any other Nazi-esq gun law states.

You are correct as to why a federal CWL will not happen.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 10-18-2018, 9:58 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

If we are talking about actual Federal CCW (not forced state reciprocity), there is 0% chance that it would be passed without someone somewhere in a free state losing some rights. Right off the bat, if this Federal CCW requires you to apply for a license, people in constitutional carry states have lost the right to ccw without a permit. There are tons of other things that would go in the standardization of CCW. I don't know why people can't see that.

If you are talking about forcing states to recognize other states permits, that is NOT "Federal CCW." That is state reciprocity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
A Federal CCW if done right would not in any way shrink rights of people in free states, in fact a Federal CCW would actually enhance the rights of people from a free state when they travel to a anti gun state...
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 10-18-2018, 10:36 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
If we are talking about actual Federal CCW (not forced state reciprocity), there is 0% chance that it would be passed without someone somewhere in a free state losing some rights. Right off the bat, if this Federal CCW requires you to apply for a license, people in constitutional carry states have lost the right to ccw without a permit. There are tons of other things that would go in the standardization of CCW. I don't know why people can't see that.

If you are talking about forcing states to recognize other states permits, that is NOT "Federal CCW." That is state reciprocity.
We need a Federal standard that all states have to recognize but that does not mean the law could not be framed in such a way that allows a state to have more liberal laws. If we just get reciprocity it will easily be undermined by some states, for example CA may allow some form of carry for out of states residents but will have so many laws that will make it next to impossible to use your weapon for self defense without getting in trouble.

As I said any reciprocity law that does not deal with the ability of state and local gov to regulate carry and or self defense laws won't be worth the paper it's written on in actual use.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 10-18-2018, 2:04 PM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

This does not make sense. You can't create a nationwide CCW law and then still let individual states issue CCW by a different (less strict) standard. That defeats the whole purpose of a Nationwide Federal CCW and will lead to other states not recognizing permits. Federal CCW would have to be the ONLY CCW in existence. As I already said, any nationwide ccw law that requires a permit will mean people in constitutional carry states will lose out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
We need a Federal standard that all states have to recognize but that does not mean the law could not be framed in such a way that allows a state to have more liberal laws.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 10-18-2018, 2:30 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: (34.2283° N, 118.5358° W), (33.6700° N, 117.7800° W)
Posts: 4,370
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
This does not make sense. You can't create a nationwide CCW law and then still let individual states issue CCW by a different (less strict) standard. That defeats the whole purpose of a Nationwide Federal CCW and will lead to other states not recognizing permits. Federal CCW would have to be the ONLY CCW in existence. As I already said, any nationwide ccw law that requires a permit will mean people in constitutional carry states will lose out.
And who in their right mind would trade that?
__________________
In honor of Fjold:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Welcome back Fjold!!!

Quote:
A society that aims for equality before liberty, will end with neither equality nor liberty.
-Milton Friedman
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 10-18-2018, 4:02 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by meno377 View Post
And who in their right mind would trade that?
Nobody in there right mind would. Which is one reason a federal CCW will never happen.

In fact, I seriously doubt that federal CCW reciprocity will ever happen.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:00 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,439
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
This does not make sense. You can't create a nationwide CCW law and then still let individual states issue CCW by a different (less strict) standard. That defeats the whole purpose of a Nationwide Federal CCW and will lead to other states not recognizing permits. Federal CCW would have to be the ONLY CCW in existence. As I already said, any nationwide ccw law that requires a permit will mean people in constitutional carry states will lose out.
Makes perfect sense to me, let's say you have a Federal CCW permit that requires a eight hour safety class to receive the permit. States would still be free to require a six hour class for carry by their residents in their state or for that matter any length of class they want. But the bottom line would be no state would be able to refuse to honor the Federal CCW for any reason or in any manner.

I doubt states will bother any longer making laws that would be more strict than the Federal law since they would not be enforceable against anyone with a Federal CCW.
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 2:20 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.