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 04-07-2017, 8:41 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

With H.R.38, I finally see some practical possibility of my right to carry being restored, in this case, the bill has a fatal flaw that need to be corrected ,or for those of us in the most resistant states, it will not be effective. It would be a crying shame to come this far, and still far short of what we need to actually exercise our rights.

The bill, as it currently stands, states:

"(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms..."

"(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property"

Clearly the intent is to force states to allow its citizens to carry with out of state permits. However, about a minute and a half after this bill passes, California (shortly followed by other anti gun states) will get around the first clause by declaring any handgun carried under an out-of-state permit to be a "public nuisance" and simply confiscate it without any arrest, detention, or any other court proceeding where the citizen might raise a defense, just as they can today with a legally owned standard capacity grandfathered magazine. In many cases, under the California's roster, these guns are quite literally irreplaceable. They might seize your gun and wait years to return it, if at all, on the pretense that they are investigating the "legitimacy" of your permit or whether it has been used in a crime. The state might even up the ante by declaring the car you are transporting it in to be a public nuisance and taking that too. Don't laugh too hard, they can already do that to your car parked in your private driveway if it has a flat tire or dirty windshield. They might also try to take your property under some criminal asset forfeiture excuse where they never have to prove any underlying charge. Perhaps they will try assessing a fine or suspending your driver's license. None of these measures constitutes a prohibited arrest or detention, yet will make the right that the bill intends to restore effectively unusable.

Section (c)(1) needs to be amended to explicitly prohibit any penalty whatsoever, including any seizure or forfeiture of any property.

Section (b)(1) needs to be amended to clarify that while private property owners may ban weapons, that Section (c)(1) still applies, no governmental penalty may be applied to any violation, and the property owner's remedy is limited to asking you to leave, or else the criminalization of carry on private property against the owner's wishes will be the government's next step.

So that covers the House bill, and the Senate bill, while less specific, contains the same loopholes I suspect. Since Congress members and Senators try very hard to insulate themselves from input from those citizens who are affected by their laws but are not their constituents, what is the best way to get this critical message to the various bills' sponsors or co-sponsors?
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 04-07-2017, 9:07 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Talk to the workgroup that already is concerned about weaknesses in the bill. Sarabellum, Kcbrown, and I are on that list. Criticism is the worst when it comes from a million different people on a million different things with a million different remedies. It puts the onus of what and how to fix on the person you criticized, and makes them feel like crap.

Come to a working group where we have a single unified list of criticism, what to strike, what to add, and a concise and consistent list of reasoning.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 04-07-2017, 9:34 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 219
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Wow, I had no idea such working groups existed at calguns. Those are all names I respect greatly. Rather than clutter up this thread, I will PM you and find out more about how I can participate and what value I might bring to the effort.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 04-07-2017, 3:04 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 8,632
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

That bit about the state declaring the person's firearm a "public nuisance" and confiscating it is a GREAT point that we should build a defense against. Thanks for the mention of that. We want to engineer an unassailable bill and need exactly that kind of feedback.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 04-10-2017, 3:58 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Two plus weeks later and still stuck at 36 co-sponsors....
Still 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
  #86  
Old 04-30-2017, 12:13 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Still at 36 co-sponsors....
20 days later and still at 36 co-sponsors....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-08-2017 at 5:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-04-2017, 1:57 PM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Bad news for this (and the House) bill. VA Senator Mark Warner, who has voted for reciprocity twice in the past, has done a 180 and now opposes it.

I don't see 60 votes in the Senate now.

http://www.newsweek.com/senator-mark...matters-594776
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-04-2017, 2:01 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,454
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Bad news for this (and the House) bill. VA Senator Mark Warner, who has voted for reciprocity twice in the past, has done a 180 and now opposes it.

I don't see 60 votes in the Senate now.

http://www.newsweek.com/senator-mark...matters-594776

Look at that creep right behind him...
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-04-2017, 2:15 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,788
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Shocking. A "pro-gun" democrat who voted for reciprocity when it had no chance of becoming law turned against it when it has a chance of becoming law.

Color me shocked.

Yet another reason we need to clean out as many democrats as possible. I wasn't party-ideologically based before this election.

Now?

Get rid of all of them if possible. It's the only way.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-04-2017, 2:16 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 5,266
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
to say he was unable to support the Senate version of the bill, even while maintaining that he remains a proud supporter of Second Amendment rights.
That is duplicitous "Dem Speak" for. The guy behind me has his hand up my butt, making my mouth move in support of HIS ANTI 2A AGENDA. While I continue to claim to support 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-04-2017, 4:56 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sen. Mark Warner (Dem) was just reelected so he figures in 5 years the voters will have forgotten. But he forgets the NRA never forgets (or forgives!).

Plus, this won't be going away. It will continue to be pushed by the NRA until it passes and will be used in their rankings of Senators and Reps. Each time it comes to a vote it smokes out more antis for the NRA to take down at the next election. Lather. Rinse. Repeat until we win!

Plus, this just puts more pressure on Trump and the Repubs to get more good judges on the federal bench, incl SCOTUS.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 05-09-2017 at 5:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-08-2017, 5:23 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
20 days later and still at 36 co-sponsors....
8 more days and still 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
  #93  
Old 06-03-2017, 11:19 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
8 more days and still 36 co-sponsors.
Almost a month later and it's now at 37 cosponsors.

At this pace I'll be CCWing in CA when I'm ...
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-04-2017, 6:10 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Almost a month later and it's now at 37 cosponsors.

At this pace I'll be CCWing in CA when I'm ...
I think this count is largely irrelevant. The GOP will support it, so now the question is finding a way to get it through with 51 votes or do something to get 8 Dems to vote for it, like adding some feel good legislation that'll make it look bad to vote against.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-04-2017, 11:06 AM
bluzman's Avatar
bluzman bluzman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: TX
Posts: 428
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FWIW: As a Texan who carries every day, I will only say that anyone interested in their 2nd Amendment rights should be extremely wary of anything that is proposed or said by Senator Cornyn. He is only interested in getting re-elected so he will say/do anything to assure that happens. IOW, like most members of Congress, he's a politician rather than a real representative of his constituents. JMO
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 07-15-2017, 10:34 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Almost a month later and it's now at 37 cosponsors.

At this pace I'll be CCWing in CA when I'm ...
A month and a half later and still only 37 cosponsors in the US Senate....
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-02-2017, 11:05 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
A month and a half later and still only 37 cosponsors in the US Senate....
Almost 5 months later and only 39 cosponsors in the US Senate....

Don't expect this Senate bill (which does not have non-resident reciprocity) to move in the Senate Judiciary Cmte until after the House passes their version (which has no-resident reciprocity).

(The House is expected to pass their version before the New Year. I think the House's last day in session before the Christmas break is Thursday, Dec. 14th.)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-02-2017 at 11:08 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-06-2017, 5:33 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Almost 5 months later and only 39 cosponsors in the US Senate....

Don't expect this Senate bill (which does not have non-resident reciprocity) to move in the Senate Judiciary Cmte until after the House passes their version (which has no-resident reciprocity).

(The House is expected to pass their version before the New Year. I think the House's last day in session before the Christmas break is Thursday, Dec. 14th.)
Now it's S. 446's turn to start moving in the Senate.

Bloomberg has said he's willing to spend $25,000,000 of his own money just to stop national reciprocity. The fight in the Senate will be the real fight, and this bill doesn't even have non-resident CCW reciprocity. (That we'll need to "win" during the conference committee if and when S. 446 passes.)

I predict the fight in the Senate will be "no holds barred" and be the toughest fight over gun rights/control since Clinton's 1994 AWB. "Be Prepared!"



ETA: IIRC, $24,000,000 is what the NRA spent in the entire last election cycle to support Trump. I think it was $14M directly supporting Trump and $10M attacking opponents. Bloomberg is willing to spend all of that just to stop one bill (national reciprocity) in one chamber (the Senate). That will be a HUGE, even historic, political attack campaign.

Also, if the final bill does NOT include non-resident CCW reciprocity with your state of residency, think of the absurd results. Let's say I in CA and a friend in MD both get non-resident FL CCWs. We will both be able to CC in all states and D.C. except I'll be able to CC in MD, but he can't even though he lives there and he'll be able to CC in CA and I can't even though I live here. This despite BOTH of us satisfying the same qualifications criteria (passed the same background check, covered the same material in the same amount of class hours, satisfied the same safe gun handling requirement, etc.) to be issued a non-resident FL CCW. That is the epitome of an "irrational" law.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-08-2017 at 9:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:43 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Looks like Cornyn may be willing to throw his own national reciprocity bill under the bus to ensure FixNICS gets passed...

Quote:
Hastings predicted the measure was "going nowhere" in the Senate, where Republicans control the chamber but would need backing from eight Democrats to avoid a filibuster.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the number two Senate GOP Leader, said on Monday that merging the gun bills complicated the path forward in the Senate and suggested splitting off the background check fix. He has a bipartisan bill on that issue with Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.

"I support both of those bills but I recognize that if you combine them it makes it a lot harder to pass the consensus bill which is the fix NICS bill," Cornyn said. "And I think it's important enough that we ought to handle those sequentially, would be my advice."
(emphasis added)

More at:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politi...rry/index.html

It may be that all national reciprocity does this legislative session is smoke out anti Dems and RINOs so that we can defeat and replace them in Nov 2018 with TEA Party/pro-Trump GOPers.

Then, reintroduce the bills with the new Congress in Jan 2019. "Lather. Rinse. Repeat" until we win!
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-06-2017 at 7:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:48 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,487
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
That is the epitome of an "irrational" law.[/B]
This sets up a 14th Amendment challenge should it be the eventuality with these bills.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-07-2017, 8:23 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: 12,700
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Chucky Shumer will filibuster this bill if it ever comes up for debate.
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:18 AM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

So let me make sure I understand this:

House bill has non-resident reciprocity. So I can get an out-of-state CCW as a non-resident in, let's say, Florida. And that would allow me to carry in places like CA (SF, LA, etc.) and NYC? And the reason this bill might have a leg up on the Senate's version is because it has the FixNICS thing attached to it?

But the Senate's version does not have the NICS part. And in this version as a CA resident, I can still get a CCW in Florida, which would allow me to carry in other states, but I still would not be able to carry in my home state of California?

Strikes me as being so weird. It'd be like if CA suddenly said they aren't going to honor out-of-state driver's licenses.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-09-2017, 7:28 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
So let me make sure I understand this:

House bill has non-resident reciprocity. So I can get an out-of-state CCW as a non-resident in, let's say, Florida. And that would allow me to carry in places like CA (SF, LA, etc.) and NYC?
Don't forget Hawai'i and Wash D.C.!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
And the reason this bill might have a leg up on the Senate's version is because it has the FixNICS thing attached to it?
Yes and the Bumpstock study requirement with ban or regulation recommendation by BATF.

I've read/skimmed MANY MSM articles since the bill passed and one of the memes that the PTB are trying to use to get Americans (and the world) outraged at this bill is the idea that after 2 major shooting massacres (and a 3rd near miss in the Congressional baseball shooting), is that the first gun bill the House passes after them has nothing to do with stopping such massacres, but actually will put more guns on the streets! That the ONLY reason congressional reps voted for the bill is because they're in the pocket of the NRA....

Actually, this "bill" now will do 3 things: (1) national reciprocity, so more CCWers are "on the streets" and, like in the baseball shooting and the Texas church shooting, both massacres were stopped/cut short by Good Guys with Guns (GGWGs) intervening (rarely mentioned by the MSM). So that 1/3rd actually "helps" prevent massacres. (2) The Fix NICS bills is related to those shootings since the BG in the TX church shooting would NOT have been able to buy his guns as he did if NICS was "fixed." And (3), the LV shooter used "bump stocks" to increase his rate of fire, so the bump stock study part of it also directly related to those shootings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
But the Senate's version does not have the NICS part.
Correct, and Cornyn does NOT want to add it to his Senate reciprocity bill. He'd rather have the FixNICS passed and reciprocity fail than have both together and risk getting neither. My guess is most of us would rather they "risk" winning both by keeping them together!

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
And in this version as a CA resident, I can still get a CCW in Florida, which would allow me to carry in other states, but I still would not be able to carry in my home state of California?
This version, if passed as is, will change your non-resident FL CCW from being good in FL and, IIRC, ~30 other states into being good in FL, Wash D.C, and every other state except your own (i.e., CA -- the place you are most likely to need it since that's where you live). But even this bill will be a MAJOR win since, even if it does not get us CCWs for CA, it will FLOOD CA with, literally, MILLIONS of out-of-state CCWers every year, year after year. The antis will blow a fuse! And it will get more and more CAians saying, if everyone else in the USA can carry in CA, why can't we??? Eventually, that kind of thinking will affect who they vote for as sheriffs (and maybe even who they vote to send to Sacto), and our whole state will eventually turn "green"! The very places in CA, like in the rest of the nation, that are most anti are often the most visited by out-of-state visitors (vacations, business trips or family visits).

__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-09-2017 at 8:02 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-09-2017, 7:34 AM
Aegis's Avatar
Aegis Aegis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,772
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post

This version, if passed as is, will change your non-resident FL CCW from being good in FL and, IIRC, ~30 other states into being good in FL, Wash D.C, and every other state but your own (i.e., CA -- the place you are most likely to need it since that's where you live). This bill will still be a MAJOR win since, even if it does not get us CCWs for CA, it will FLOOD CA with, literally, MILLIONS of out-of-state CCWers every year, year after year. The antis will blow a fuse!
I don't see how that helps 40,000,000 million people in CA from exercising their 2A rights?

Those who think that we will have this new "legal standing" from a bad bill are fooling themselves. Look at the recent court cases such as Peruta, to see what will happen to this new "legal standing" after a bad bill.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-09-2017, 7:59 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
I don't see how that helps 40,000,000 million people in CA from exercising their 2A rights?.
Neither the House nor the Senate bills having anything to do with CAians "rights": they both have to do with CCW "permits."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
Those who think that we will have this new "legal standing" from a bad bill are fooling themselves..
Study the post Civil War amendments....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
Look at the recent court cases such as Peruta, to see what will happen to this new "legal standing" after a bad bill.
Look at Heller and McDonald to see what happens if The Donald/Pence gets to replace Kennedy and RBG or another anti.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-09-2017, 8:15 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aegis View Post
I don't see how that helps 40,000,000 million people in CA from exercising their 2A rights?

Those who think that we will have this new "legal standing" from a bad bill are fooling themselves. Look at the recent court cases such as Peruta, to see what will happen to this new "legal standing" after a bad bill.
Those in restrictive counties are not helped directly within CA, but they would be able to get non res permits and travel anywhere else, as well as all non CA residents could then carry in CA with their permits.
The HR 38 weak link IMO is allowing CA residents to bypass their own permit and carry on anothers.
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-09-2017, 9:31 AM
OCEquestrian's Avatar
OCEquestrian OCEquestrian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,750
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
Per the NRA website:

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

The bill recognizes the diversity of state concealed carry laws by making each person subject to the concealed carry laws of the state where they are present, including certain places off-limits to firearms and laws governing the defensive use of force. It merely allows out-of-state permittees to concealed carry the same way in-state residents already do.

I can't track down the text of the bill as of yet, but it doesn't seem like it will do what HB 38 would in allowing Ca residents to CCW in CA with a out of state CCW licence.

Could be bad news for us, because the NRA is backing the Senate bill.

S. 446, The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (TX).

-Cee
One step at a time... lets not oppose it just over the highlighted portion above. lets get national reciprocity first and then we can fine tune it...with THIS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
This sets up a 14th Amendment challenge should it be the eventuality with these bills.
__________________
NRA life member
SAF life member
CRPA member

Last edited by OCEquestrian; 12-09-2017 at 9:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-11-2017, 4:10 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/u...ciprocity.html

2 more Dem senators who were YES votes in 2013 now are NO votes, no mention if that's the whole House bill w/FIX NICS or just standalone reciprocity. If that's the case I don't know where the votes are made up to reach 60.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-11-2017, 6:31 AM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,697
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
2 more Dem senators who were YES votes in 2013 now are NO votes, no mention if that's the whole House bill w/FIX NICS or just standalone reciprocity. If that's the case I don't know where the votes are made up to reach 60.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
Republican leaders, wary of seeing the measure once again fail on the floor of the Senate floor, were not rushing the concealed-weapon bill to that chamber. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican and a co-sponsor of both the concealed-carry and background check bills in the Senate, said on Tuesday that he was “realistic enough” to realize that following the House’s lead by combining the bills would also be pointless in his chamber.
Which basically is the same issue I've been wondering about all along. It seems like either they will need to use some procedural tricks (doubtful) or they need to get a few more Republicans in the Senate. Hopefully the Democratic senators from the states that voted for Trump will get kicked out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-11-2017, 7:02 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CCWFacts View Post
Which basically is the same issue I've been wondering about all along. It seems like either they will need to use some procedural tricks (doubtful) or they need to get a few more TEA Party and/or pro-Trump Republicans in the Senate. Hopefully the Democratic senators from the states that voted for Trump will get kicked out.
Fixed it for ya!

Don't forget 14 Repubs in the House voted AGAINST HR38 and 6 Dems voted FOR it.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-11-2017 at 7:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-11-2017, 8:17 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,339
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Fixed it for ya!

Don't forget 14 Repubs in the House voted AGAINST HR38 and 6 Dems voted FOR it.
Their opposition seemed to be because of the fix NICS portion, not reciprocity.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-11-2017, 3:10 PM
Drivedabizness's Avatar
Drivedabizness Drivedabizness is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 2,004
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

At this point, nothing to keep McConnell from doing away with the filibuster on legislation.

Given what we know about how dirty the Dems are willing to play, perhaps Mitch may decide to tell Schumer ll bets are off. The D's have WAY more seats to defend in 2018, many in States where Trump won. I think we can get to 60 - in either case we need to make clear that failure in the Senate is not an option.
__________________
Proud CGN Contributor
USMC Pistol Team Alumni - Distinguished Pistol Shot
Owner of multiple Constitutionally protected tools
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-11-2017, 3:27 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,618
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
Their opposition seemed to be because of the fix NICS portion, not reciprocity.
Yes, a few as noted below. But my bet is the rest truly don't want reciprocity. Peter King from NY comes to mind and you can bet Gillibrand and Kirk will vote no in the Senate.

https://www.ammoland.com/2017/12/fou...#axzz510CIENJD

Last edited by dfletcher; 12-11-2017 at 3:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-12-2017, 9:40 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 204
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

"Despite last week's fanfare, any Senate vote on concealed carry is not expected until next spring, sources said Monday."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ate-fight.html
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-12-2017, 7:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

FOXNews, not a Leftist MSM, is calling the AL special election for the Dem.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-projects.html

That makes the slim chance the GOP had of winning just plain ol' national reciprocity (S. 446), less likely and the chance of winning national reciprocity that would directly help us in CA to use non-CA CCW to carry in CA (HR38) even less likely.

Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and the other antis must all be celebrating.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-12-2017 at 7:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-12-2017, 7:32 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,618
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
FOXNews, not a Leftist MSM, is calling the AL special election for the Dem.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-projects.html

That makes the slim chance the GOP had of winning just plain ol' national reciprocity (S. 446), less likely and the chance of winning national reciprocity that would directly help us in CA to use non-CA CCW to carry in CA (HR38) even less likely.

Bloomberg, Feinstein, Schumer, and the other antis must all be celebrating.
Agree. Given the large number of gunowners in AL and Jones' repeated dodges explaining his position on gun control I suppose it shows a whole lot of "shall not be infringed" chest thumpers voted for him. I think we can read much into his one statement that he supports expanded background checks.

Let's face it, if he had anything positive to say about guns it would have helped him in AL.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-12-2017, 9:13 PM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
🇺🇸 Jack-Booted Gov Thug
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 U.S. Code § 798
Posts: 14,764
iTrader: 64 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
Agree. Given the large number of gunowners in AL and Jones' repeated dodges explaining his position on gun control I suppose it shows a whole lot of "shall not be infringed" chest thumpers voted for him. I think we can read much into his one statement that he supports expanded background checks.

Let's face it, if he had anything positive to say about guns it would have helped him in AL.
EVEN if he supported it before, now that he's an elected Dem, you can be sure he's going to toe the party line. I think the only chance he has of getting on board with this (and a tiny chance at that) is if ALL the residents in AL demanded he vote for it...

We're going to have to lean heavy on the RINOs up for election this round in the hopes that get with the program.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-13-2017, 7:12 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: 12,700
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Drop another vote from the senate election last night. Now they only have 51 left.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-13-2017, 7:42 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 8,191
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Last week, 4 AL residents asked a court for an order to require the state to keep the electronic images of the ballots for 6 months in case of an election challenge. (The polls take electronic images of the ballots, destroy the ballots and then make a count of the votes off of the electronic images.) A court issued that order on Monday. The AL Supreme Court stayed that order on Tuesday, the morning of the election! I have not been able to find out if they gave a reason.

Does staying that order make ANY sense??? What's the cost of enforcing the order: just keeping electronic images on the cloud or harddrive somewhere for 6 months. What's the potential harm of not enforcing the order: possible corruption in the election of a US Senator!

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...ords-in-senate

ETA: Seems like that report of automatic destruction of physical ballots is wrong. (emphasis in the below added)

Quote:
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, whose office, argued the case on behalf of the Alabama Secretary of State, issued a statement Tuesday night about the case.

“Media and social media stories that the State of Alabama is seeking to prevent the preservation of records in the event of a recount or challenge of the December 12 election are false,” said Attorney General Steve Marshall. “Recent confusion over Alabama election record keeping procedures has led to a misunderstanding of the facts. Alabama election procedures already provide a path to a recount. The plaintiff’s lawsuit and resulting Circuit Court order, which have fortunately been stayed, would have only created chaos and delay in the election process.

“The Alabama Supreme Court’s actions helped ensure a smooth election and will not result in the destruction of records needed if there is a recount or a challenge to the election.

“Here are the facts.

Digital images of ballots are not required in the event of a recount or an election contest. Original paper ballots are preserved while electronic images generally are not preserved. The same records have always been used in election contests and recounts.

“The vast majority of Alabama ballot scanning machines are not programmed to preserve the images. To change them, as the plaintiffs seek, would not mean simply flipping a switch, but would require the third-party vendor, Elections Systems and Software, to travel to 2000 voting machines around Alabama to change them. This process could not be completed in a day. To attempt it the day before and day of the election would cause chaos, confusion, and delay.”
From: http://whnt.com/2017/12/12/alabama-s...ronic-ballots/
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-13-2017 at 8:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-13-2017, 7:50 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 293
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
"Despite last week's fanfare, any Senate vote on concealed carry is not expected until next spring, sources said Monday."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ate-fight.html
I'm not sure that makes any sense (Next Spring) since at that time there will need to be another vote in the House since it's a new legislative year.

The momentum is now....

Odd.
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 2:57 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.