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
  #121  
Old 12-06-2017, 3:55 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 206
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The proggies in Lost Angles County are going to stay inside their houses with the blinds drawn for days if this gets through the Senate. The local antifa warriors may rethink their tactics. And CA will lose money from people not applying for a CA permit, perhaps.

Sounds fine to me. A three-fer, in fact.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:35 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 IVC View Post
Local laws apply. Cannot carry standard capacity magazines and cannot carry where it's generally prohibited.
Unless an amendment passed today that changes the wording of the bill, this is incorrect.

The bill as written explicitly prevents any arrest or detainment for "any" law or regulation pertaining to the possession, carry, or transportation of a firearm.

Please see post #56 in this thread for a breakdown of the wording. Quoted below:

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

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

Edit: Bolded relevant text for clarity on this point.

Last edited by DirtyLaundry; 12-06-2017 at 4:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:36 PM
ruel ruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 32
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncmng View Post
I can see a lot of out-of-state people getting into trouble with this.


Text from the Bill itself

“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:49 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 700
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Unless an amendment passed today that changes the wording of the bill, this is incorrect.

The bill as written explicitly prevents any arrest or detainment for "any" law or regulation pertaining to the possession, carry, or transportation of a firearm.

Please see post #56 in this thread for a breakdown of the wording. Quoted below:
Correct. And further, the House Judiciary Committee considered an amendment that would have excluded “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” from the protections of H.R. 38. The Committee voted down that amendment, 7-17.

Here’s how the committee report described it:
Quote:
High Capacity Ammunition Magazines. Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) offered an amendment to prohibit the bill from allowing the carrying of high capacity magazines for use with handguns across state lines. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 7-17.
That is a clear indication of legislative intent—H.R. 38 allows people to carry “any” magazine across state lines, if they have an out of state CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 12-06-2017, 5:28 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Cut the hyperbole and have a reasonable open discussion.

NICS and FFL mandated background checks aren't going anywhere. Fix NICS bill does not change any enforcement criteria, it only enacts .gov agency accountability according to current law. You are choosing a poor place to draw lines.

Saying no to a pro-2A bill on the grounds of insignificant administrative changes at the government agency level to laws already on the books is a pretty poor excuse IMO.
Agreed. The naysayers on this thread should get out of there mom's basements and actually try and effect change in the real world. I work in politics. This is a great deal for us.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 12-06-2017, 5:43 PM
WokMaster1's Avatar
WokMaster1 WokMaster1 is offline
Part time Emperor
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,443
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Do we have enough votes in the Senate to get this pushed through?
__________________
"Good friends, good food & good wine. Anything else is just a waste of soy sauce.":)
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 12-06-2017, 5:49 PM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 126
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel View Post
Text from the Bill itself

“(2) The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This seems like an easy 10th am. challenge in court
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:00 PM
skilletboy's Avatar
skilletboy skilletboy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,951
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WokMaster1 View Post
Do we have enough votes in the Senate to get this pushed through?
God I hope so, but I doubt it.
__________________
Quote:
"If the American people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the law then they will conclude that neither are they." - Michael Cannon, Cato Inst. 2014

_________________________________________

Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:07 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
Hopefully the dems in the senate wont try to add a residency ammendent like they tried to do in the house and failed to do so...and all the republicans will be on board with this...and since its no longer a stand alone bill (NICS), some dems will vote for it too...and most of all PASS!!!
The Senate version of the bill (sponsored by Cornyn) already has a "permit issued by state of residence" provision, which makes it different from the House bill. If the Senate doesn't alter Cornyn's bill, and it passes the senate, then the two chambers will have to reconcile the bills, come up with an agreed version to take to a vote, and pass that too.

I fear that in order to get through the Senate, they'll have to go with a residency requirement, but fingers crossed!

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:36 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,028
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
The Senate version of the bill (sponsored by Cornyn) already has a "permit issued by state of residence" provision, which makes it different from the House bill. If the Senate doesn't alter Cornyn's bill, and it passes the senate, then the two chambers will have to reconcile the bills, come up with an agreed version to take to a vote, and pass that too.

I fear that in order to get through the Senate, they'll have to go with a residency requirement, but fingers crossed!

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.
Also a good thing is that since hr. 38 and hr. 4477 are combined together..it's no longer a stand alone bill. That's been discussed many times here before... that's what this bill needs to increase the chances of it passing.
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:47 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stag6.8 View Post
Also a good thing is that since hr. 39 and hr. 4477 are combined together..it's no longer a stand alone bill. That's been discussed many times here before... that's what this bill needs to increase the chances of it passing.
Yes. I wasn't close to the implications around combining the two when it was announced, and was initially worried about the combination and what it meant based on some concerns from certain gun rights orgs and representatives. But I've come to view the combo as very important and a shrewd move in Congress.

Senate dems are (hopefully) going to be forced to shoot down fix-NICS to have any chance of stopping reciprocity. I don't think that is a winning political move for a lot of dems, and I hope they'll bend to that reality, and accept reciprocity to get fix-NICS.

Dems raise a lot of money from gun-control orgs, but gun rights orgs deliver votes (which is why the NRA is so demonized, IMHO). The history of gun control and the democrats, it seems to me, is that they tend to be harmed (nationally) by pushing for more controls. And pushing hard enough to stop a bill promising to strengthen the background check improvements of fix-NICS in trade for reciprocity would open them up to very effective arguments (provided repubs and others can for once in their lives make those effective arguments).
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 12-06-2017, 6:50 PM
DanMedeiros DanMedeiros is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post

Lots of work left to do. Good idea to press the leadership and our own reps / senators to pass it (even if it seems fruitless to pressure Harris and Feinstein). Frankly, any reciprocity - even with a residency requirement - is better than nothing and continues to advance the ball and put pressure on CA sheriffs to move closer to shall-issue.
Even if it has a residency requirement it will be a big political win. Hard to justify may issue when somebody from Nevada can carry in CA but a resident can't
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:20 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Butte County, California
Posts: 1,558
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalAlumnus View Post
Correct. And further, the House Judiciary Committee considered an amendment that would have excluded “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” from the protections of H.R. 38. The Committee voted down that amendment, 7-17.

Here’s how the committee report described it:


That is a clear indication of legislative intent—H.R. 38 allows people to carry “any” magazine across state lines, if they have an out of state CCW.
Hope this survives in the Senate. Would this mean that although I am limited to 10 rnds if I carry pursuant to my CA permit, I could carry in CA using std. capacity mags under my NV, UT, OR, WA & ID permits.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:31 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 CalAlumnus View Post
Correct. And further, the House Judiciary Committee considered an amendment that would have excluded “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” from the protections of H.R. 38. The Committee voted down that amendment, 7-17.

Here’s how the committee report described it:


That is a clear indication of legislative intent—H.R. 38 allows people to carry “any” magazine across state lines, if they have an out of state CCW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BAJ475 View Post
Hope this survives in the Senate. Would this mean that although I am limited to 10 rnds if I carry pursuant to my CA permit, I could carry in CA using std. capacity mags under my NV, UT, OR, WA & ID permits.
Looks that way, as it stands. Seems you could also carry any weapon under your out of state permit not just the 3 listed on CA.
__________________
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


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

Last edited by 71MUSTY; 12-06-2017 at 7:47 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:33 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba View Post


Why do people think that a license to carry is the expression of a right?

Only 11 or 12 states have the actual right.
RadicalGunNuttery started that map many years ago. I recall first seeing it back when I was on Packing.org, before being on CGN (~2002 - '04). Back then, only Vermont was Constitutional Carry and we were hoping that "someday" another state may join them in "Vermont Carry", as it was known back then. Then came Alaska, which had a better system because it continued to offer CCW permits for out-of-state reciprocity. So we started dreaming about more states passing "Alaska carry" bills. Then some bright boy came up with the name "Constitutional Carry" and the rest, as they say, is history.

RGN titled the map "Right-to-Carry" because, with Shall Issue, as long as you satisfy the objective criteria for being issued a CCW, a CCW "shall" be issued to you: you have a "right" to it under state law. It is not a privilege.

FWIW, at this time, IIRC, even ConCarry states can readily pass laws to go back to Shall Issue or even May Issue. I don't think any changed their constitutions to make Concealed Carry a state right. And, of course, we all know at this point in time, SCOTUS has not declared either OC or CC a right under the 2nd A of the federal Constitution. So I don't think there are ANY states that have "the actual right" as you phrased it. (Maybe VT, but then again, that would only be under their state constitution, not also protected by the federal one (yet!).)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-06-2017 at 9:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:42 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Alameda County
Posts: 7,341
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I should mention for folks starting to think about applying for non-resident CCWs that FL's is for 7 years, so that's plenty of time for this to fail this year, get passed next legislative session and to be challenged in the federal courts and yet still have time on it so that when you renew, it will be after the tsunami of applications sure to come in from the May Issue states (~27% of the national population).

That's what I did....

I'd also suggest you go through the 220+ examples of CCWers saving lives I've linked in my sig line. (I stopped prematurely on the first page of the thread to restart it on the 2nd page.) Other than being a pizza delivery driver, who gets attacked is quite unpredictable. Sure, EDCing a G19 with spare mags and a BUG would be great. But the main lesson, IMO, is to frickin' EDC something! The more the better, but a J-frame or .380 in the pocket trumps a 9/.40/.44/.45/whatever in your safe at home every time.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

220+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-06-2017 at 7:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:54 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,571
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skilletboy View Post
God I hope so, but I doubt it.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few democrats that vote for it. There are a few in Red States that would get ousted if they dont vote for this. Montana's democrat senator comes to mind.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:02 PM
Luieburger's Avatar
Luieburger Luieburger is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: El Paso, TX
Posts: 898
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

I did the math. The best case scenario is that we get 58 votes. The worst is we get only 52. Most likely we'll hit 55. See my other post for details.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=1364
__________________

NRA Benefactor Life Member
SAF Committee of One Thousand
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:14 PM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,546
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Hypothetically, if this does pass, does that mean someone with a carry permit in whatever state, let's say Florida, could legally carry in a place like NYC?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:18 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 FourT6and2 View Post
Hypothetically, if this does pass, does that mean someone with a carry permit in whatever state, let's say Florida, could legally carry in a place like NYC?
As it is currently written, YES
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:21 PM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,546
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
As it is currently written, YES
Wow. That is amazing actually.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:28 PM
Rastoff's Avatar
Rastoff Rastoff is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: So Cal (Near Edwards AFB)
Posts: 657
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I don't think it does allow a person to carry in CA if they only have an out of state license. This part, "... is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides..." is what concerns me on that front.
__________________
Remember, you can post here because they died over there.

www.BlackRiverTraining.com
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:46 PM
NorCalGlock9 NorCalGlock9 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 637
iTrader: 33 / 100%
Default

What if someone applied for CCW in CA and got denied? Would that mean they’re not “entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the state they reside”?
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:11 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastoff View Post
I don't think it does allow a person to carry in CA if they only have an out of state license. This part, "... is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides..." is what concerns me on that front.
Discussed extensively, and commented extensively by Congress members in passing the bill . . . but not uncommon to be uncertain about the language.

HR 38 essentially provides two classes of persons entitled to reciprocity rights in terms of CCW: (1) those with a permit issued by A state, or (2) those who are resident in a state that allows carry without a permit (i.e., Constitutional Carry states). The phrase you quote captures bucket number 2 - those in a Con Carry state that can CCW without a permit.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:33 PM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,546
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
Discussed extensively, and commented extensively by Congress members in passing the bill . . . but not uncommon to be uncertain about the language.

HR 38 essentially provides two classes of persons entitled to reciprocity rights in terms of CCW: (1) those with a permit issued by A state, or (2) those who are resident in a state that allows carry without a permit (i.e., Constitutional Carry states). The phrase you quote captures bucket number 2 - those in a Con Carry state that can CCW without a permit.
So as a CA resident, if I get a non-resident permit in another state, it's honored in every other state under this bill, should it pass as it's written? i.e. as a CA resident, if I get a permit in another state, I can then carry in CA? Even if CA denies my application for a residential permit?
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:38 PM
Noranjen Noranjen is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 71
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Does anyone know when this will go up for a vote?
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:47 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FourT6and2 View Post
So as a CA resident, if I get a non-resident permit in another state, it's honored in every other state under this bill, should it pass as it's written? i.e. as a CA resident, if I get a permit in another state, I can then carry in CA? Even if CA denies my application for a residential permit?
Yes, with caveats. If you are a CA resident with an AZ / NV / UT / FLA, etc. permit, the house version of the bill should let you carry in CA. With caveats.

Caveats:

1. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I would fully expect CA and other states to sue to prohibit its enforcement in CA and wouldn't be surprised to see a CA court enjoin the law.

2. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I would expect CA authorities to explore ignoring it, and prosecuting a few folks -- i.e., without seeking to overturn the law itself, they'd go after individuals and litigate for a decision that supports their view that the law is invalid as to CA residents who don't have a CA LTC.

3. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, the wrinkle of having been denied a CA LTC would also offer up an opportunity to litigate the issue, with some individual's potential conviction on the line.

4. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I expect CA would get up to all sorts of mischief (think gun free school zones, on a much wider basis).

5. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, expect all sorts of other ideas to attempt to preempt its effects for CA residents.

My personal view is: (1) if you don't have a non-res permit, maybe time to think about getting one before a potential crush of applications hit; and (2) also wouldn't worry too much about passage just yet - long way to go, but moving in the right direction.

(BTW - some of your posts from months back encouraged me to get a FFL03 and CoE well before crunch time of Dec 2017 arrived ; similar posts by others encouraged me to get a non-resident permit outside California in case reciprocity actually passes, or (back then) Peruta came out somewhat differently.)
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:09 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Without digging through the companion thread and prior discussions on HR38's non-resident permit implications, I'd offer up a link to the House report on defeated amendments, first posted by FailedAngrMgmt in the companion thread. Click the link and scroll down to roll call vote #4: https://www.congress.gov/congression...use-report/433

Or see FailedAngrMgmt's post here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...postcount=1375
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:12 PM
subaruwrx subaruwrx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: SoCal
Posts: 126
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Excuse my ignorance but what is the procedure for the house bill in the senate. Does it go to a senate committee or is it immediately heard on the floor? Any estimation of a timeline? (2 weeks)
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:13 PM
Danodog's Avatar
Danodog Danodog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East San Diego County
Posts: 2,022
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

I don’t think they are going to get 60 votes and Californians that do not have a CCW get a big nothing burger. So why the excitement?
__________________
Calguns Contributor
NRA Patron Member
What have you done for 2A lately?

Reply With Quote
  #151  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:59 PM
Xstrada Xstrada is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Orange, Ca
Posts: 6
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What about the nuclear option?
Reply With Quote
  #152  
Old 12-06-2017, 10:59 PM
WoodTurner's Avatar
WoodTurner WoodTurner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 57
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danodog View Post
I don’t think they are going to get 60 votes and Californians that do not have a CCW get a big nothing burger. So why the excitement?
Because there is a reasonable chance it will get the 51 votes it needs to pass the Senate?
Californians that have an out of state CCW may have a chance to carry, if things go well.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:14 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Xstrada View Post
What about the nuclear option?
For national reciprocity? Lol. Never going to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danodog View Post
I don’t think they are going to get 60 votes and Californians that do not have a CCW get a big nothing burger. So why the excitement?
Because you need to think beyond yourself and look at what this means on a national level. In 2003 the federal AWB was still in place. Now we have a chance to pass national reciprocity, which is even more meaningful after all of our failed court cases. This would damage the gun control lobby and signify which direction this country is headed. It's a gigantic win symbolically, but also shows how far we've come in only 15 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodTurner View Post
Because there is a reasonable chance it will get the 51 votes it needs to pass the Senate?
Californians that have an out of state CCW may have a chance to carry, if things go well.
Depends if the democrats in the senate will allow it to come to a vote. I suspect they won't.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:28 PM
Cortelli Cortelli is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 217
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danodog View Post
I don’t think they are going to get 60 votes and Californians that do not have a CCW get a big nothing burger. So why the excitement?
1. If the house bill passes as written, great.

2. If the senate version of the house bill is passed, then the bill goes to conference, a second opportunity for the house bill.

3. If the senate version of the house bill is passed, and it goes to conference and the senate version (requiring permit from state of residence) passes, then CCW rights are expanded nationwide, even if CA residents don't directly benefit in the near term. But CA residents in may-issue counties should still benefit indirectly -- a visitor from out of state can exercise 2A rights in such counties, but it is (near) impossible for a CA resident to do so?

4. If neither the senate nor house version passes in the senate, then they're be a clearer line drawn around those not willing to support the bill, and those voting against will be on record not wanting to support a law that would strengthen the existing background check system, a key argument of those disinclined to support 2A rights.

Put another way, our elected representatives, house or senate, are going to have to make what may be a hard choice from their own perspective and go on the record again as to where they stand, which is the essence of a representative democratic republic, and face voters for their choice. That has been a positive for 2A rights over the past several decades, and a real headache for politicians who are not necessarily 2A friendly.

The legislative history (and momentum) of CCW-related laws favors a pro-CCW attitude. Elected leaders pay attention to these trends. One doesn't typically land a knock-out punch - it's usually lots of jabs. This bill offers up a powerful jab.

All IMHO.
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:29 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 Danodog View Post
I don’t think they are going to get 60 votes and Californians that do not have a CCW get a big nothing burger. So why the excitement?
This is incorrect.

With the house bill as written there is a real chance here for out of state non-resident CCW that is valid in CA should it pass as is.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 12-07-2017, 4:22 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,208
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If they need to pick up extra senate votes, there's still more bargaining chips to be played, like DACA, bump stocks, or amending the current version where concarry residents will still need a permit to be covered. They could also use as a last resort using the Senate's language and include "other than the state of residence", although the Dem senate targets for this ALL live in shall issue states, and many of those are either concarry or honor all other permits anyway. So how do they say it's going to cause a bloodbath when their state isn't affected in the slightest?
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 12-07-2017, 7:41 AM
FourT6and2's Avatar
FourT6and2 FourT6and2 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,546
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
Yes, with caveats. If you are a CA resident with an AZ / NV / UT / FLA, etc. permit, the house version of the bill should let you carry in CA. With caveats.

Caveats:

1. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I would fully expect CA and other states to sue to prohibit its enforcement in CA and wouldn't be surprised to see a CA court enjoin the law.

2. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I would expect CA authorities to explore ignoring it, and prosecuting a few folks -- i.e., without seeking to overturn the law itself, they'd go after individuals and litigate for a decision that supports their view that the law is invalid as to CA residents who don't have a CA LTC.

3. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, the wrinkle of having been denied a CA LTC would also offer up an opportunity to litigate the issue, with some individual's potential conviction on the line.

4. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, I expect CA would get up to all sorts of mischief (think gun free school zones, on a much wider basis).

5. If the house version of the bill is signed into law, expect all sorts of other ideas to attempt to preempt its effects for CA residents.

My personal view is: (1) if you don't have a non-res permit, maybe time to think about getting one before a potential crush of applications hit; and (2) also wouldn't worry too much about passage just yet - long way to go, but moving in the right direction.

(BTW - some of your posts from months back encouraged me to get a FFL03 and CoE well before crunch time of Dec 2017 arrived ; similar posts by others encouraged me to get a non-resident permit outside California in case reciprocity actually passes, or (back then) Peruta came out somewhat differently.)
Yeah, getting the 03 FFL + COE was a good idea. Glad you got on that!

I kind of view national reciprocity as being similar to a driver's license. Imagine if CA suddenly said hey we will no longer honor out-of-state driver's licenses. Libs have been yammering on for years about how they want guns to be regulated like cars/driver's license. Well... national reciprocity is a step in that direction. Good or bad. So I wonder if there is some regulatory simile between how a D.L. works and how national reciprocity for CCW would work. And what happens if a state refuses to honor it? So that's definitely an interesting scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:14 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 6,258
iTrader: 34 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cortelli View Post
1. If the house bill passes as written, great.

2. If the senate version of the house bill is passed, then the bill goes to conference, a second opportunity for the house bill.

3. If the senate version of the house bill is passed, and it goes to conference and the senate version (requiring permit from state of residence) passes, then CCW rights are expanded nationwide, even if CA residents don't directly benefit in the near term. But CA residents in may-issue counties should still benefit indirectly -- a visitor from out of state can exercise 2A rights in such counties, but it is (near) impossible for a CA resident to do so?

4. If neither the senate nor house version passes in the senate, then they're be a clearer line drawn around those not willing to support the bill, and those voting against will be on record not wanting to support a law that would strengthen the existing background check system, a key argument of those disinclined to support 2A rights.

Put another way, our elected representatives, house or senate, are going to have to make what may be a hard choice from their own perspective and go on the record again as to where they stand, which is the essence of a representative democratic republic, and face voters for their choice. That has been a positive for 2A rights over the past several decades, and a real headache for politicians who are not necessarily 2A friendly.

The legislative history (and momentum) of CCW-related laws favors a pro-CCW attitude. Elected leaders pay attention to these trends. One doesn't typically land a knock-out punch - it's usually lots of jabs. This bill offers up a powerful jab.

All IMHO.
If no. 3 comes to pass, CA residents should sue CA for equal protection violation because non-CA residents would be able to exercise a right in the state that we ourselves cannot.
__________________
NRA Patron Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group, LLC
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 12-07-2017, 9:31 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: 11,452
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Chucky Shumer will filibuster this if it ever gets to debate.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 12-07-2017, 10:27 AM
Danodog's Avatar
Danodog Danodog is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: East San Diego County
Posts: 2,022
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Thanks for the thoughtful responses. I guess I am such a pessimist these days.....
__________________
Calguns Contributor
NRA Patron Member
What have you done for 2A lately?

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 3:10 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.