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 > CONCEALED CARRY/LICENSE TO CARRY > Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Calguns Concealed Carry County Information Forum Information on how to get a LTC in yourCounty

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:04 PM
scv_guy scv_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default HR 38 LA County residents

If HR 38 gets signed into law. Can an LA County resident get an out of state ccw and carry in California?
  #2  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:05 PM
tankton tankton is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 489
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

No.
  #3  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:11 PM
PatC415 PatC415 is offline
FREELOADER
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: SEE LEVEL
Posts: 674
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tankton View Post
No.
One mans interpretation...Others say YES.
While there has been lots discussion on this topic, watch this video:
Probably DOA in the Senate, but this pretty much sums up HR38.
http://www.abc10.com/news/local/cali...ians/496882908
__________________
Take my advice, I'm not using it.

Last edited by PatC415; 12-06-2017 at 4:28 PM..
  #4  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:27 PM
scv_guy scv_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

The video didn't work but very interesting reading. If true that would be great!
  #5  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:31 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 13,810
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Not interpretation, reality. If this thing has any chance, they are going to have to promise that only home state permits will be reciprocal, and all proposed language I have seen restricts permits honored to those of the state of residence.

If that changes, this thing never passes.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lear60man View Post
My transvestite analogy stands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterfern View Post
Didn't realize. I try not to be political.
XXXXXXX
  #6  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:28 PM
tuna quesadilla tuna quesadilla is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Placentia
Posts: 3,745
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Not interpretation, reality. If this thing has any chance, they are going to have to promise that only home state permits will be reciprocal, and all proposed language I have seen restricts permits honored to those of the state of residence.

If that changes, this thing never passes.
Right. Alternatively, if they do remove the "state of residence" thing, then I foresee a lot of states cancelling their non-resident permit programs. Either way, it doesn't change much for us here in CA.
  #7  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:07 AM
scv_guy scv_guy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 883
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

That's not what I was hopping to hear..
  #8  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:05 AM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Not interpretation, reality. If this thing has any chance, they are going to have to promise that only home state permits will be reciprocal, and all proposed language I have seen restricts permits honored to those of the state of residence.

If that changes, this thing never passes.
Citadel is correct as one can see if they read the language of the actual bill"

Quote:
Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
The entire text can be read here.

Also read the part of the summary describing a qualified individual.

Quote:
A qualified individual must: (1) be eligible to possess, transport, or receive a firearm under federal law; (2) carry a valid photo identification document; and (3) carry a valid concealed carry permit issued by, or be eligible to carry a concealed firearm in, his or her state of residence.
While the text of the bill seems not to limit it to resident permits, but to holders of any permit issued by a state or to residents of states that do not require a permit for "Constitutional Carry", the summary pretty well shows that the bill is intended to only apply to residents of that state.
  #9  
Old 12-07-2017, 11:20 AM
PatC415 PatC415 is offline
FREELOADER
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: SEE LEVEL
Posts: 674
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Not interpretation, reality. If this thing has any chance, they are going to have to promise that only home state permits will be reciprocal, and all proposed language I have seen restricts permits honored to those of the state of residence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Citadel is correct as one can see if they read the language of the actual bill"



The entire text can be read here.

Also read the part of the summary describing a qualified individual.



While the text of the bill seems not to limit it to resident permits, but to holders of any permit issued by a state or to residents of states that do not require a permit for "Constitutional Carry", the summary pretty well shows that the bill is intended to only apply to residents of that state.
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.
__________________
Take my advice, I'm not using it.
  #10  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:01 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks PatC. That link isn't working and before I couldn't pull up anything on an amendment that had been offered. With what you posted in mind, whether or not the law is limited to resident permits indeed isn't so clear. The language of the actual bill refers to a permit OR if one is entitled to carry as a resident of their state. The resident of their state language was ambiguous as to whether or not it applied to the permit but only to permitless carry. The failure to pass that amendment however suggests that my initial interpretation of the bill was correct and it does not differentiate from a resident or nonresident permit. If passed in the Senate I smell litigation.
  #11  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:06 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Thanks PatC. That link isn't working and before I couldn't pull up anything on an amendment that had been offered. With what you posted in mind, whether or not the law is limited to resident permits indeed isn't so clear. The language of the actual bill refers to a permit OR if one is entitled to carry as a resident of their state. The resident of their state language was ambiguous as to whether or not it applied to the permit but only to permitless carry. The failure to pass that amendment however suggests that my initial interpretation of the bill was correct and it does not differentiate from a resident or nonresident permit. If passed in the Senate I smell litigation.
This language is in there so it includes people from constitutional carry states (They get to carry without a permit) not to restrict permits to state of residence.

Read it again from that viewpoint. It makes a world of difference.
__________________
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.
  #12  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:10 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Thanks PatC. That link isn't working and before I couldn't pull up anything on that roll call or the amendment. With what you posted in mind, whether or not the law is limited to resident permits indeed isn't so clear. The language of the actual bill refers to a permit OR if one is entitled to carry as a resident of their state. The resident of their state language was ambiguous as to whether or not it applied to the permit but only to permitless carry. The failure to pass that amendment however would suggest that my initial interpretation of the bill was correct and it does not differentiate from a resident or nonresident permit. If passed in the Senate I smell litigation.
  #13  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:17 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
This language is in there so it includes people from constitutional carry states (They get to carry without a permit) not to restrict permits to state of residence.

Read it again from that viewpoint. It makes a world of difference.
Yes 71Musty. That was what I first thought until I saw the summary, but when I saw the material just discussed about the vote on the amendment I went back to thinking as you. Still, from all of that it isn't that clear what the bill means. As for constitutional carry, some states allow it for residents but not non-residents, IIRC. I know of at least one state that affords CC to nonresidents, but only issues to residents. The advantage being that its permit receives reciprocity but I do not believe reciprocity is granted to its residents who do not have permits.
  #14  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:21 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
Yes 71Musty. That was what I first thought until I saw the summary, but when I saw the material just discussed about the vote on the amendment I went back to thinking as you. Still, from all of that it isn't that clear what the bill means. As for constitutional carry, some states allow it for residents but not non-residents, IIRC. I know of at least one state that affords CC to nonresidents, but only issues to residents. The advantage being that its permit receives reciprocity but I do not believe reciprocity is granted to its residents who do not have permits.
The summary is wrong, summaries are always slanted by the writer, the law is what matters. Remember the ACA (Obamacare) summary said it would make Healthcare AFFORDABLE for all Americans.
__________________
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.
  #15  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:24 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

A bigger fear, if this passes, is that states will stop issuing non resident permits. Likely since from their standpoint non residents no longer need a special permit. And the states that will issue them just for revenue generation will likely become expensive.
__________________
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.
  #16  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:27 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The language of the law is what matters if it is unambiguous. I think it is and damn the summary. Only if it is ambiguous or the law would be an absurdity if applied according to its plain meaning does the court consider extraneous evidence of intent. Here, I see no basis to look beyond the text of the bill. I agree with you. This can get all the more interesting if you consider that some residents of California are also considered to be residents of shall issue states. As I remember something I reviewed, one may have several residences but only one place of domicile. Serves Cali back for treating those who leave it for months and perhaps years as still being residents.

Last edited by Chewy65; 12-07-2017 at 1:33 PM..
  #17  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:39 PM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,643
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy65 View Post
The language of the law is what matters if it is unambiguous. I think it is and damn the summary. Only if it is ambiguous or the law would be an absurdity if applied according to its plain meaning does the court consider extraneous evidence of intent. Here, I see no basis to look beyond the text of the bill. I agree with you. This can get all the more interesting if you consider that some residents of California are also considered to be residents of shall issue states. As I remember something I reviewed, one may have several residences but only one place of domicile. Serves Cali back for treating those who leave it for months and perhaps years as still being residents.
Check out the other thread on HR38. You will see Democrats attempted to amend the bill to make only resident permits count and the amendment failed. Why would they have done that if the summary was correct?

As it stands ANY state permit is legal in all states. Could change before we get the final bill to Trumps desk (if we do).
__________________
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.
  #18  
Old 12-07-2017, 1:43 PM
Chewy65 Chewy65 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
A bigger fear, if this passes, is that states will stop issuing non resident permits. Likely since from their standpoint non residents no longer need a special permit. And the states that will issue them just for revenue generation will likely become expensive.
Expense is a relative thing and many a resident of Sn Franciso or Los Angeles will happily pay for those permits. As for those states that wish to turn non-
resident permits into a profit center, competition among the states will keep the costs earthbound.
  #19  
Old 12-07-2017, 2:54 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Super Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Concord
Posts: 36,380
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Note also that the Senate version does appear to require a permit from the state in which one resides, and the Senate Bill is likely to be merged into the House version - but there's no way to predct which language will survive.

Closed, as all of this is in the threads in National - that's where discussion of 2A/gun bills in Congress goes.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...play.php?f=331
__________________
The Legislature is in recess. We're immune from most further mischief until the next session begins, late December 2017.

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.

Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


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 1:40 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.