|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
||||
|
||||
The courts always disagree. That's why McDonald was settled by the SCOTUS but never settled. The appeals courts change some aspect and re-rule. Then you get years long delays on previous decisions.
Rise and repeat, it's never going to be settled here. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think something that embraces Heller and MacDonald that give states clear indication of what is not acceptable would be good. Ala magazine limits, cosmetic or ergonomic features, the roster, requiring unavailable features,etc should all be clearly unconstitutional. Further just as the voting rights act allowed the feds to review all new voting laws and procedures in areas that have shown a historical problem. I would like to see California, NY, NJ, HI,etc be forced to demonstrate that all new gun laws are constitutional before they are enacted. As for the motives around civil rights long after the fact it looks like it was a good thing to do but I would suggest that marches and civil unrest were taking their toll. Reducing the unrest, creating political stability and trying to win the votes of a newly protected voters all where real benefits above and beyond just "doing the right thing". Here we will have similar fights. Any reaffirmation of 2a will be met by people saying it if just the gun lobby, or NRA or some other smaller vilified group pushing an agenda that helps themselves financially. Ignoring the fact that these are stances supported by most Americans. Ignoring the fact that when you actually explain how these laws work what is legal, what would be illegal no person can logically defend them. So we need a 'gun owners rights act' to be put on the table asap. No telling how long the Republicans will continue to hold the Congress. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is CA so anything is possible whatever CA can do to ban guns they will might take a few years but CA is 100% anti gun. Bottom line this why it is so important that any national CCW bill remove any state control on how the bill is enforced to do less will be a waste of time. |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#285
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#286
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If they just stopped issuing, but still had the provision to issue, Imperius would be right. What Danny is missing is that if they made it illegal to carry, there would then be no legal means to "bear" in CA (since OC is now illegal), and that would be like throwing raw steaks to the dogs -- SAF, the NRA-ILA, etc, etc would fall all over themselves to sue CA.
__________________
|
#287
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#288
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The anti-gunners are heir apparent to the segregationists - their tactics, their mentality and their view of the opposition. |
#289
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The civil rights movement had to start with wanting to do the right thing by enough of the people to move it forward. I agree with you that parameters are what need to be set, not out and out dictatorial stances to the state. We have 1 year maximum for your suggested gun owners rights act to get on the table. I am willing to bet the Republicans don't have the guts and you will hear the apologist fake right tell us why they didn't or couldn't get it done. I hope to be wrong! |
#290
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I've been sending emails to tons of Republicans asking. |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
Rep. Hudson was a big part of the Trump presidential campaign team.
He Is listening to us: http://freebeacon.com/issues/nationa...carry-permits/ "After Hudson introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 last week, questions were raised about whether it would apply to permits issued by some states to non-residents. In an interview with the Free Beacon, Hudson confirmed that permits issued by any state to residents or non-residents would have to be recognized by all other states under his legislation. “My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson said." |
#293
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A SCOTUS case decision only holds for that case and time. Change a minor aspect and it's re-ruled by a lower court. Rinse and repeat. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
Fantastic News
Quote:
|
#295
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Jack Do you want an AOW or C&R SBS/SBR in CA? No posts of mine are to be construed as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer. |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#300
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Hudson on "Bullets" 1/10/17 podcast with AWR Hawkins. Interview begins at 23:15. http://www.podcastone.com/bullets-with-awr-hawkins |
#301
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#302
|
||||
|
||||
National Reciprocity Bill Will Apply to Non-Resident Permits
Interesting. We'll see what happens but I'm not holding my breath:
"Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.) clarified on Wednesday that his national concealed carry reciprocity bill would apply to permits issued by states to non-residents." http://freebeacon.com/issues/nationa...carry-permits/ |
#305
|
||||
|
||||
^ Which was why, as the article points out, there was a lot of confusion about the subject. As there is here on CGN. In fact my reading of the bill left the opposite impression which is what I supported. No longer.
__________________
"Our data directly contradicts some of the prevailing assumptions and the proposition that only a small group of rotten apples perpetrate the vast majority of police crime.” http://thefreethoughtproject.com/study-police-crime/ https://www.policemisconduct.net/ “You can fool yourself, you know. You'd think it's impossible, but it turns out it's the easiest thing of all.” ~ Jodi Picoult |
#306
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#307
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The GFSZ act still states a CCW issued by "the" state rather than "a" state. While it is not enforced in free states against those with resident and non-resident permits from other states, it is legally still illegal for me to carry within 1000ft of a school in New Mexico. California already has its own GFSZ, in addition to SB707. It would be easy enough for CA to issue a policy statement that pc626.9 is not exempt by non-resident permits. That would put visitors, or CA residents with an AZ permit, in the same condition that open carry activists were in. They would also quickly pass a law stating that private property posted "no guns" holds force of law. The Fed could force all 50 states to be shall-issue and CA would still figure out a way to deny the right by combining restrictions imposed by 10 other states into one.
__________________
- Rich |
#308
|
|||
|
|||
What the Federal gov may end up doing is establishing a Federal standard for CCW permits and enforcing the reciprocity bill if passed by holding back Federal funds from states that won’t honor the bill. By having a standard it will be much harder for the anti gun states to make a case to not honor the bill for anyone that is holding a CCW issued by a state that follows the Federal standard.
This states right thing has got this country in a real mess but I believe the feds can untangle the mess if they really want to and start to bring back unity to the country. |
#309
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That said, I agree with you there needs to be some kind of fundamental protections and standards of enforcing those protections are ensured by the federal government as granted to us by being free Americans. There are a couple ways this could be done: 1. Make sure all states are required to be shall issue. This can be done by outlining the people that will not be allowed to receive a carry permit (prohibited) and ensuring all others can apply and will be granted a permit meeting no more than a small number of requirements. Perhaps proof of residency, proof of identity etc. Much like voting. Then you could have optional requirements "allowing" the states to also require registration of the weapon being carried, X amount of hours of training, etc" but limited to only iterated optional requirements, not allowing the states to bolt on anything further. 2. States can continue to issue permits however they wish, but there will be a new single federal permit that will be a "shall issue" permit based on certain requirements (perhaps proof of citizenship, non-prohibited person etc). This federal permit will then override all state permits and be valid in all 50 states and all territories such as Puerto Rico for example. One or both of these would do it and still more or less preserve the states rights. I wouldn't bet on the idea that our soon-to-be president, senate or house have the sand to get this done. Last edited by rootuser; 01-14-2017 at 3:02 AM.. |
#310
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
IANAL but that seems pretty clear language to me. |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
|
#312
|
|||
|
|||
All of the problems raised above are why I wonder, if instead of a National Reciprocity Bill, the first thing that should get passed is a National Preemption Law, with real consequences for states, legislatures and AGs that don't recognize the Constitution and write law anyway.
It seems to me that if, in a worst case scenario, all that will truly be accomplished for 2A in the next two years is one or two SCOTUS appointments and one or two pieces of legislation slowly working their way through the courts (where they are all guaranteed to end up thanks to CA at least), that the political capital should be spent on reasserting the 2A in such a way that its meaning can't be reversed when 'we' lose the Senate, or the Presidency... or possibly even the SCOTUS. It possibly means a longer wait for some states to enjoy their Rights, but might also mean that once the Rights are re-won they will be unassailable. Wishful thinking, I know. That all said, I think H.R. 38 is really well written, succinct, not easily misconstrued and should solve most Citizen's "Carry" problems... as written. We'll see what it says when it gets to the floor, and if 'we' will be able to hold the other two Branches long enough to get it back from the Judicial intact and enforceable. |
#313
|
|||
|
|||
I believe the laws WRT school grounds would still have force but not the 1000' imaginary radius laws.
|
#314
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Though it will does not cover purchase or receipt.
__________________
- Rich |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
18 USC § 922 (q)(2) -- (A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone. “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. (emphasis mine) So you can't haz guns in a school zone, ok, what's a school zone? 18 USC § 921(a)(25) The term “school zone” means— (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (emphasis mine) So I don't understand where you're getting this school grounds thing, because HR 38 repeats: “(f)(1) A person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under subsection (a) shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) with respect to that handgun. Seems covered. What did I miss? HR38 refers to "may possess or carry a concealed handgun" -- so your long guns are still no-go.
__________________
Last edited by speedrrracer; 01-14-2017 at 4:49 PM.. |
#316
|
|||
|
|||
The bill says one who possesses the requisite permit ".... 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 ...." but it also says this doesn't apply to grounds owned by state or other government organs.
This would seem to say that the actual school grounds, state campuses, and other publicly owned sites are still under local law, but no such magical carve out exists for the 1000' radius around the public school site. This seems pretty reasonable to me. I suppose this would also make carry on the grounds of private schools legal as well? As for the AWB etc, it would seem to (for instance) immunize a CHL holder from laws that require them to transport their RAW a certain way or whatever, but not allow them to conceal carry anything except a handgun. This would put me as a hypothetical future Oregon resident CHL holder visiting CA in the hilarious position of being (apparently) able to carry my suppressed 300BLK AR pistol w 30rnd mags in CA once the hearing protection act renders the silencer non-NFA. |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, it seems like if you legally own it outside CA and it's not a federal crime to take it between states, you're good to go with having those with you, but not conceal carrying anything but a handgun.
|
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
"“(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" but the second part is where they'll hang you, imo: " unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. " Trying to get a judge to buy that the reciprocity agreement makes you immune to laws regarding your long gun is, imo, a step too far.
__________________
|
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Here's the actual language:
" 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; or “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. “(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 unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section." Taken from here. This seems to say laws relating to firearms possession etc. are preempted for a person with the right document except for laws that prohibit firearms in "State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park", note firearms, not CC prohibitions. Also, you are correct in saying the bill expressly says "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 unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section." which is a little ambiguous but you are probably right, having your Tavor in the car with you might not be covered. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|