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
  #1  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:45 PM
harbormaster harbormaster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Marina on the Delta
Posts: 159
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Why Not a Federal CCW?

https://www.minds.com/Netjr/blog/uni...90461133643776

Could Trump, by EO, require the BATF to issue a federal concealed weapons permit to enable individuals to defend themselves in places where permits are too costly and difficult to get (Chicago, SF, etc)? I know some anti heads will explode but can't the Federal Government issue licenses / permits that exceed States and Local Governments?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-17-2018, 12:59 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Executive branch and their Orders only have scope to interpret existing law and regulations, and to what extent the various divisions of the Executive act on those parts of the code.

It would take an act of Congress to specifically override and assume preemption of the field of firearms carry licensing in order to do what you are suggesting.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-17-2018, 1:17 PM
Lonestargrizzly's Avatar
Lonestargrizzly Lonestargrizzly is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,456
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Idk if that would be the way to go.
Unless its actually amended into the constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-17-2018, 1:30 PM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 391
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

It's already there, 2A. The problem is politicians can't accept that citizens have basic rights that don't depend on or are not controlled by the government.

The politicians can't comprehend "Shall not be Infringed". That is the problem, they have violated their sworn oaths.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-17-2018, 2:02 PM
dogrunner dogrunner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: E/Central Fl
Posts: 92
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Just remember that what the powers that be may give, they may also take away...............be damned careful what you wish for!!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-17-2018, 2:12 PM
harbormaster harbormaster is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Marina on the Delta
Posts: 159
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default clarify?

As I read your point, it strikes me you are saying it would take an act of congress to STOP (override) an administration from doing this? So Trump could make it so and it would be up to Congress to stop him?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
The Executive branch and their Orders only have scope to interpret existing law and regulations, and to what extent the various divisions of the Executive act on those parts of the code.

It would take an act of Congress to specifically override and assume preemption of the field of firearms carry licensing in order to do what you are suggesting.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-17-2018, 2:30 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Incorrect. The 2A originally restricted the Federal Government from encroaching on enumerated rights. At the time of the country's founding, the 2A only applied to the Federal Government, and the 14th Amendment and incorporation did not exist. It was expected that states would mirror the tenets of the Bill of Rights in each State Constitution. Some did, and some did not, which is why we are in this situation in California: our's has no protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

When Heller and McDonald were decided by SCOTUS, they finally incorporated the 2A against the states, via the 14th Ammendment, and it could then be argued "Keep and Bear" were protected rights that states could not infringe upon.

The problem was and is that infringement was not rigidly defined, nor were the methods used to interpret them, with those two cases giving enough room to maneuver for an anti-gun judiciary. Bear was practically left out of those two decisions to the point where the lower courts are still deciding if it's even a right at the state level.

We are still in the very early days of what the 2A means to everyone, with the exception the Federal Government. And it's because of the lack of decided cases that it's a patchwork of laws that still need to be sorted out.

This includes firearm carry licensing, which is a state-level rubric, as there are very few laws about carrying firearms (with exceptions for sensitive places) at the Federal level. For an E.O. to be created for permitting, it would only act on Federal law and jurisdictions. To do the same for state-level jurisdictions, Congress would need to act and pass a bill preempting such power from the states.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:06 PM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,092
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
The Executive branch and their Orders only have scope to interpret existing law and regulations, and to what extent the various divisions of the Executive act on those parts of the code.

It would take an act of Congress to specifically override and assume preemption of the field of firearms carry licensing in order to do what you are suggesting.
Isn't the Second amendment an existing law? Doesn't it grant that right automatically?
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:06 PM
colossians323's Avatar
colossians323 colossians323 is online now
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 19,092
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dogrunner View Post
Just remember that what the powers that be may give, they may also take away...............be damned careful what you wish for!!
California already affirmed this by repealing the second amendment
__________________
LIVE FREE OR DIE!

M. Sage's I have a dream speech;

Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Sage View Post
I dream about the day that the average would-be rapist is afraid to approach a woman who's walking alone at night. I dream of the day when two punks talk each other out of sticking up a liquor store because it's too damn risky.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:18 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 2,500
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

He could file suit and rollback NFA, GCA and Brady. That should keep the antis busy.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:25 PM
SVT-40's Avatar
SVT-40 SVT-40 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Az
Posts: 8,995
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
The Executive branch and their Orders only have scope to interpret existing law and regulations, and to what extent the various divisions of the Executive act on those parts of the code.

It would take an act of Congress to specifically override and assume preemption of the field of firearms carry licensing in order to do what you are suggesting.
Congress has done this on a "limited basis" for LEO's under the H.R. 218 in 2004. It's now correctly called LEOSA.

This bill which was passed allowed both current duty as well as retired LEO's to carry concealed in all 50 states and territories of the USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_En...ers_Safety_Act
__________________
Poke'm with a stick!


Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
What you believe and what is true in real life in the real world aren't necessarily the same thing. And what you believe doesn't change what is true in real life in the real world.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:28 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,462
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

with states legalizing marijuana seems like a fair trade off to have the feds issue permits in locations refusing to obey the second amendment
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:29 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colossians323 View Post
Isn't the Second amendment an existing law? Doesn't it grant that right automatically?
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. In order to enforce 2A against the states, it must be proven why the regulatory actions by the states are not completely immune via the 10th Amendment.

It takes cases to connect the legal circuitry to settle that 2A is outside the protections of 10A.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-17-2018, 3:31 PM
edgerly779 edgerly779 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: canoga park, ca
Posts: 10,779
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Nah preemption of states rights. Not a chance. Let some our resident AC'S chime in.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-17-2018, 4:05 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,462
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by edgerly779 View Post
Nah preemption of states rights. Not a chance. Let some our resident AC'S chime in.
like gay marriage?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-17-2018, 5:34 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,904
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

im thinking if a state eliminated trial by jury the feds would get involved quickly.

Our problem with RKBA is that communist infiltrators have been elected and we all know how communist's view self defense !
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-17-2018, 5:56 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,723
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
im thinking if a state eliminated trial by jury the feds would get involved quickly....
Knowledge is really helpful, because then you can think about actual facts.
  • One fact is that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a civil case has been ruled to not apply to the States (Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v Bombolis, 241 US 211 (1916)).

  • Another fact is that the some federal civil actions aren't entitled to a jury, e. g., claims under ERISA.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-17-2018, 5:59 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ja308 View Post
im thinking if a state eliminated trial by jury the feds would get involved quickly.

Our problem with RKBA is that communist infiltrators have been elected and we all know how communist's view self defense !
We can all (?) agree that the current crop of politicos are not on our side, but the California Constitution was enacted in 1879, without RKBA recognition. At least acknowledge that this state has been anti-gun in spirit since it's inception.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-17-2018, 6:05 PM
tomrkba's Avatar
tomrkba tomrkba is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Soon to be in the Bay Area Circle Jerk
Posts: 416
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
It's already there, 2A. The problem is politicians can't accept that citizens have basic rights that don't depend on or are not controlled by the government.

The politicians can't comprehend "Shall not be Infringed". That is the problem, they have violated their sworn oaths.
If only we as citizens had the balls to do what is necessary-with or without violence. But, we don’t and the result is politicians do whatever they want.
__________________
After every murder spree, the Left has its little gungasm and we fight off their political herpes.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-17-2018, 8:42 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
like gay marriage?
Gay marriage was affirmed as a due process right. In all 50 states, marriage is a function of the state, not the religious institutions. The state has a fundamental public policy interest in the institution of marriage, the protections of children of marriage, total authority of dissolution of marriage other than by death, and total control over the estates of married persons upon dissolution or death. You cannot legally marry (except in states recognizing common law marriage) without a license, and without a state-licensed officiant. ("By the Power invested in me by the Great State of ___") Religious beliefs are irrelevant to all of these issues. Therefore it is a simple conclusion that a state cannot discriminate in issuing licenses to some people and not to others.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-18-2018, 12:22 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A Federal CCW and stand your ground law with all state laws being preempted so that no state law can conflict with Federal law is very badly needed in this country. The only way we can have national reciprocity in this country will be through Federal level laws that take state laws completely out of the mix.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-18-2018, 9:26 AM
Flintlock Tom's Avatar
Flintlock Tom Flintlock Tom is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
Posts: 3,006
iTrader: 32 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robotron2k84 View Post
...It was expected that states would mirror the tenets of the Bill of Rights in each State Constitution. Some did, and some did not, which is why we are in this situation in California: our's has no protection of the right to keep and bear arms. ...
This seems like it "mirror[s] the tenets of the Bill of Rights..."

Quote:
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 1. The State of California is an inseparable part of the
United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the
supreme law of the land.
__________________
"Everyone must determine for themselves what level of tyranny they are willing to tolerate.
I let my 03 FFL expire in 2013 and my CA residency in 2015."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-18-2018, 9:57 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: 12,704
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

For the same reason there's not a national DL or voting card. It's the 10th amendment.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-18-2018, 10:06 AM
weaselfire weaselfire is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 74
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
For the same reason there's not a national DL or voting card. It's the 10th amendment.
This. 100%. Except DLs are universally accepted.

Jeff

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-18-2018, 1:06 PM
GunsInMyEyes GunsInMyEyes is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 259
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Because that would leave a lot less room for divide and conquer and infringements
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-18-2018, 1:48 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,712
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bohoki View Post
with states legalizing marijuana seems like a fair trade off to have the feds issue permits in locations refusing to obey the second amendment
Wrong...it's a state issue, not a federal one.

In polls on calguns.net prior to FBHO's 2 presidential election, cal gunners who voted favored a national CCW license in trade for mandatory background checks for all 50 states...STUPID. I'd guess with little freedom left in California, they'd take anything they think they would get.


Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
A Federal CCW and stand your ground law with all state laws being preempted so that no state law can conflict with Federal law is very badly needed in this country. The only way we can have national reciprocity in this country will be through Federal level laws that take state laws completely out of the mix.
That's both so wrong and stupid. See above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GunsInMyEyes View Post
Because that would leave a lot less room for divide and conquer and infringements
I'd suggest that if you're tired of "infringements", you might just consider moving to a state without them.

California's legislators and executive branch people will see to it that RKBA continues getting worse each near, but that's what the Democratic / Libtard / Progressive / Communist voters want. Since California's gun owners have issues joining together and / or voting, they get what they deserve.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

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

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-18-2018, 5:23 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Wrong...it's a state issue, not a federal one.





That's both so wrong and stupid. See above.



I Happen to be 100 % correct but I don't fault anyone for not agreeing however I know what I said is not stupid. It may be that whoever thinks what I say is stupid is actually the one that is stupid. And yes right now the right to self defense is a state issue but because some states won't do what is right the right for any state to deny anyone their 2A right needs to stopped.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-18-2018, 5:40 PM
Robotron2k84 Robotron2k84 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 485
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's entirely possible to either let the courts hash out how the 2A and 10A interact, or to have Congress dispense with the procedure and craft a bill that outlines the way it works.

In doing so, Congress would need to dispense with 10A concerns via one of two of their powers, namely: article I powers - the commerce clause or their article IV powers - full faith and credit.

It is legally possible to do what you are suggesting, but the political will to trample 10A is not there. Nor does SCOTUS treat 10A violations lightly, opting to prevent the Federal Government from compelling states to enforce Federal Law.

Anything that can be done by the right to enact legislation that deteriorates 10A can also be done by the left to a similar effect.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-18-2018, 6:12 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 92688
Posts: 18,462
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruOil View Post
Gay marriage was affirmed as a due process right. In all 50 states, marriage is a function of the state, not the religious institutions. The state has a fundamental public policy interest in the institution of marriage, the protections of children of marriage, total authority of dissolution of marriage other than by death, and total control over the estates of married persons upon dissolution or death. You cannot legally marry (except in states recognizing common law marriage) without a license, and without a state-licensed officiant. ("By the Power invested in me by the Great State of ___") Religious beliefs are irrelevant to all of these issues. Therefore it is a simple conclusion that a state cannot discriminate in issuing licenses to some people and not to others.

and yet plural marriages are not allowed

how is individual states ccw policies any different than voter registation tests
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-19-2018, 2:50 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,712
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I Happen to be 100 % correct but I don't fault anyone for not agreeing however I know what I said is not stupid. It may be that whoever thinks what I say is stupid is actually the one that is stupid. And yes right now the right to self defense is a state issue but because some states won't do what is right the right for any state to deny anyone their 2A right needs to stopped.
If you've read what I posted, I used "stupid" to describe screwing those in free states with mandatory NICS checks for the entire country, so states like California could get CCW via the feds, since they realize (duh) they'll never get real shall-issue licenses.

I'd describe shall-issue as needing no reference letters, no interviews with bosses, fellow workers, neighbors, etc. ...not to mention heightened need, contributions to sheriff's election, member of the county posse', and so on.

Simply pass the background check, give a set of prints, pay your money, and the CHL in your mail in a couple of weeks.

Why do you, I assume a Californian, want to restrict those who moved out of California for overall better and richer lives? Just fyi, it's refreshing to live in a state where you're expected to take care of your own issues without government "assistance"?

ETA...Try imagining the Demos' in Congress proposing changes to the qualification requirements for a federal CWL. :eek"
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

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

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

Last edited by -hanko; 08-19-2018 at 3:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-19-2018, 4:12 PM
M1NM's Avatar
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 5,853
iTrader: 47 / 100%
Default

Your drivers license and vehicle license is good in all states (due to commerce clause?). Most professional licenses are good in every state. Why isn't a CCW permit also covered? That would be the simplest way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-19-2018, 6:38 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,723
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
Your drivers license and vehicle license is good in all states (due to commerce clause?)....
Wrong. A State will recognize the driver's license of other States because the States have agreed among themselves to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1NM View Post
....Most professional licenses are good in every state. ....
Wrong again. If you are licensed by State A as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc., in State A, you can't expect to take that State A license and be able to set up shop in State B as a barber, lawyer, contractor, doctor, etc. So while I'm licensed to practice law in California, that license isn't necessarily recognized by the State of Oregon to allow me to practice in Oregon (at least unless I associate with local counsel).
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-19-2018, 7:38 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
If you've read what I posted, I used "stupid" to describe screwing those in free states with mandatory NICS checks for the entire country, so states like California could get CCW via the feds, since they realize (duh) they'll never get real shall-issue licenses.

I'd describe shall-issue as needing no reference letters, no interviews with bosses, fellow workers, neighbors, etc. ...not to mention heightened need, contributions to sheriff's election, member of the county posse', and so on.

Simply pass the background check, give a set of prints, pay your money, and the CHL in your mail in a couple of weeks.

Why do you, I assume a Californian, want to restrict those who moved out of California for overall better and richer lives? Just fyi, it's refreshing to live in a state where you're expected to take care of your own issues without government "assistance"?

ETA...Try imagining the Demos' in Congress proposing changes to the qualification requirements for a federal CWL. :eek"
I never said anything about restricting states I said we need a federal level CCW that no state can refuse to honor or have laws that are more restrictive than the federal laws.

Last edited by R Dale; 08-19-2018 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-19-2018, 7:43 PM
dustoff31 dustoff31 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 8,298
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
I never said anything about restricting states I said we need a federal level CCW that no state can refuse honor or have laws that are more restrictive than the federal laws.
Yeah, well that isn't going to happen.
__________________
"Did I say "republic?" By God, yes, I said "republic!" Long live the glorious republic of the United States of America. Damn democracy. It is a fraudulent term used, often by ignorant persons but no less often by intellectual fakers, to describe an infamous mixture of socialism, miscegenation, graft, confiscation of property and denial of personal rights to individuals whose virtuous principles make them offensive." - Westbrook Pegler
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-19-2018, 10:04 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,399
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
Yeah, well that isn't going to happen.
You don't know that but the fact is it needs to happen.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-19-2018, 10:18 PM
325inthe510 325inthe510 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: East Bay
Posts: 390
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

We'd have better luck with people getting arrested for CCW and then making a legal challenge out of it.

Trump does not give a **** about the 2A, he likely never has and won't do a damned thing for us.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-19-2018, 10:28 PM
tsmithson tsmithson is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 149
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

If all of CA citizens voted for the right to CCW. The judges would just overturn the vote of the people like they did on illegals not having a CA drivers License.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-19-2018, 11:47 PM
DentonandSasquatchShow's Avatar
DentonandSasquatchShow DentonandSasquatchShow is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Just down the street from Mickey
Posts: 22
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harbormaster View Post
https://www.minds.com/Netjr/blog/uni...90461133643776

Could Trump, by EO, require the BATF to issue a federal concealed weapons permit to enable individuals to defend themselves in places where permits are too costly and difficult to get (Chicago, SF, etc)? I know some anti heads will explode but can't the Federal Government issue licenses / permits that exceed States and Local Governments?
Obama really bastardized the meaning of EO didn't he.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-20-2018, 8:12 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: 12,704
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by weaselfire View Post
This. 100%. Except DLs are universally accepted.
Jeff
Driver's licenses are now subject to federal regulation under the Real ID Act.

That is why you have to waste a day at the Cal DMV to get a non-illegal alien version.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-20-2018, 10:07 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,904
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 325inthe510 View Post
We'd have better luck with people getting arrested for CCW and then making a legal challenge out of it.

Trump does not give a **** about the 2A, he likely never has and won't do a damned thing for us.
are you kidding?
Gorsuch and Kavenaugh are the latest examples of his love for 2A !
Showing up and speaking at the NRA convention against his advisors, was just another example of this PROGUN President.

But then I would not expect a TV watching democrat who is NOT NRA to know such minor details!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
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 7:51 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.