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.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old 01-11-2017, 8:11 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: 16,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:18 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I understand your "realistic" approach and you are not wrong, but the right thing to do was the Civil Rights Act for example. It didn't help people in "some" states and not others.

There were some big swingers in DC at that time on both sides. They didn't sit around and fret and kvetch about what might or might not be challenged in the courts. They figured out that civil rights were more important than re-election.

We are unfortunately faced with a bankrupt morality in both parties. Civil rights extend to "Some" people and not others is EXACTLY what the Republicans are telling us from this type of bill.
While I agree the civil rights bills like the voting rights act look like good examples to follow I'm not so sure if the nobel motives you suggest.

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  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:23 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IGORR View Post
Question: Maybe a stupid question but i was just curious. So this bill would allow people with a permit to carry in any state that allows some form of CCW. lets say CA decides to somehow ban all CCW in order to block out of state permit holders coming in.....now i know this is extremely unlikely but my question is would off duty law enforcement have to apply for that to work? Would they also then not be able to carry when off duty?


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  
Old 01-11-2017, 9:35 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rootuser View Post
I understand your "realistic" approach and you are not wrong, but the right thing to do was the Civil Rights Act for example. It didn't help people in "some" states and not others.

There were some big swingers in DC at that time on both sides. They didn't sit around and fret and kvetch about what might or might not be challenged in the courts. They figured out that civil rights were more important than re-election.

We are unfortunately faced with a bankrupt morality in both parties. Civil rights extend to "Some" people and not others is EXACTLY what the Republicans are telling us from this type of bill.
Civil rights is a perfect parallel to what the anti gun states are doing by denying their citizens their 2A rights. Also something to think about when the civil rights act was passed it was a benefit to the entire nation not just the southern states. having the country more united is always a good thing and long as states like CA are allowed to mistreat its citizens there is always the potential for that thinking to spread to other states.
  #285  
Old 01-11-2017, 2:36 PM
Imperius's Avatar
Imperius Imperius is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: San Jose
Posts: 156
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInSoCal View Post
Prediction: If this passes Kalifornistan will simply stop issuing CCW's in order to stop all those vetted, background checked, registered, certified out-of-state CCW holders from doing so here.

Obviously we can't be putting illegal criminals and radicalized hadjis at risk.....
so what if they stop issuing them? getting my AZ permit was incredibly easy and would work in CA if this bill is passed. and then if i am arrested and charged for carrying this bill gives me the right to go after the state
  #286  
Old 01-11-2017, 3:03 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imperius View Post
so what if they stop issuing them? getting my AZ permit was incredibly easy and would work in CA if this bill is passed. and then if i am arrested and charged for carrying this bill gives me the right to go after the state
I think DannyInSoCal worded his reply poorly, and is trying to say that CA would actually make it illegal to CCW, which would trigger the provision in the bill eliminating that state from reciprocity.

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  
Old 01-11-2017, 5:19 PM
randomBytes's Avatar
randomBytes randomBytes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,605
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post

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.
CA does not believe the constitution applies to them - 9th circus would seem to agree.
  #288  
Old 01-11-2017, 5:32 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
I think DannyInSoCal worded his reply poorly, and is trying to say that CA would actually make it illegal to CCW, which would trigger the provision in the bill eliminating that state from reciprocity.

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.
Agree on the distinction between prohibit and not issue and impact on the law. But, there is as of now no legal right to carry in public, concealed or open. Heller and McDonald dealt only with possession in the home for self defense. CA could do a modern day version of what PG County in VA did after Brown required desegregation in public schools by declaring their public schools private. CA could prohibit carrying in public. Maybe would last for a short while, maybe for a long while - who knows. But no doubt the legislature would blame national reciprocity and public safety for the prohibition.

The anti-gunners are heir apparent to the segregationists - their tactics, their mentality and their view of the opposition.
  #289  
Old 01-11-2017, 10:23 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
While I agree the civil rights bills like the voting rights act look like good examples to follow I'm not so sure if the nobel motives you suggest.

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.
Agreed, not everyone had good motives, but not everyone ever does.

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  
Old 01-11-2017, 10:24 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Civil rights is a perfect parallel to what the anti gun states are doing by denying their citizens their 2A rights. Also something to think about when the civil rights act was passed it was a benefit to the entire nation not just the southern states. having the country more united is always a good thing and long as states like CA are allowed to mistreat its citizens there is always the potential for that thinking to spread to other states.
I absolutely agree. So what is the Republican legislature going to do about it?

I've been sending emails to tons of Republicans asking.
  #291  
Old 01-12-2017, 6:11 AM
steel30's Avatar
steel30 steel30 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Murrieta
Posts: 2,028
iTrader: 211 / 100%
Default

reciprocity tag
__________________
  #292  
Old 01-12-2017, 7:23 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,234
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

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  
Old 01-12-2017, 8:16 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: 16,466
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
This would require the courts to stall a law already in place. Usually if the law is declared unconstitutional the courts will fast track the appeal.
They can't simply sit on it.
Like what happened to Prop 187? We are still awaiting the appeal of that decision. There is no consistancy to legal decisions. A legal decison leads to more legal decisions. That's why you can't buy/own a gun in NYC and DC even though the McDonald SCOTUS decision said you can.

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  
Old 01-12-2017, 10:09 AM
readinglist readinglist is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 46
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Fantastic News

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
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."
This is great news for all of us in the anti-gun states. As far as the posters up thread discussing the civil rights movement, I think it's a good comparison. When it was successful in the late '60s it was a combination of courtroom challenges, new legislation, and street action that forced the issue. Each course of action is incomplete without the others -- done together, highly effective at changing society. We don't have to be the majority to win, we just have to be the stubborn minority.
  #295  
Old 01-12-2017, 10:56 AM
ke6guj's Avatar
ke6guj ke6guj is offline
Moderator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 909
Posts: 23,728
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
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."
in addition,

Quote:
Many gun owners in states that use a “may issue” permitting process, such as California or New Jersey, are not able to obtain concealed carry permits from their home state—even if they’ve passed a background check and met the training requirements—since the final decision in those states is left at the discretion of government officials. However, those same gun owners may be able to obtain a non-resident permit from a state with different gun laws. Under Hudson’s proposal, that permit would allow them to carry across the country—including in their home state.
__________________
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.
  #296  
Old 01-12-2017, 10:58 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Why that sounds downright sensible
__________________
  #297  
Old 01-12-2017, 11:03 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Why that sounds downright sensible
I Agree.
  #298  
Old 01-12-2017, 11:26 AM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgatodeacero View Post
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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milsurp Collector View Post
Not really. If you read it in context, he wants people who have a concealed carry license from their own state to be able to use it in other states ....
Yes, really - see the quote and link above.
  #299  
Old 01-12-2017, 12:42 PM
ritter ritter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: North Bay Area
Posts: 799
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Any thoughts (beyond the standard 2 weeks!) how long this may get slapped around before becoming law (assuming it makes it that far)?
  #300  
Old 01-12-2017, 12:56 PM
surfgeorge surfgeorge is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 565
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ritter View Post
Any thoughts (beyond the standard 2 weeks!) how long this may get slapped around before becoming law (assuming it makes it that far)?
Even Rep. Hudson won't speculate on that. A couple of days ago he was quite circumspect about even the likelihood of the bill being passed by the Senate.

Hudson on "Bullets" 1/10/17 podcast with AWR Hawkins. Interview begins at 23:15.

http://www.podcastone.com/bullets-with-awr-hawkins
  #301  
Old 01-12-2017, 2:05 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,346
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
Like what happened to Prop 187? We are still awaiting the appeal of that decision. There is no consistancy to legal decisions. A legal decison leads to more legal decisions. That's why you can't buy/own a gun in NYC and DC even though the McDonald SCOTUS decision said you can.

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.
Prop 187 was repealed in 2014, but in 1999 Davis withdrew his appeal and essentially killed the law.
  #302  
Old 01-13-2017, 1:03 PM
RazoE's Avatar
RazoE RazoE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 235
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default 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/
  #303  
Old 01-13-2017, 1:06 PM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Manteca
Posts: 18,957
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Ohhh yeah, I like this.
  #304  
Old 01-13-2017, 1:08 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

was obvious to anyone who read the bill in the first place
__________________
  #305  
Old 01-13-2017, 1:26 PM
RazoE's Avatar
RazoE RazoE is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 235
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

^ 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  
Old 01-13-2017, 1:57 PM
JeffSD's Avatar
JeffSD JeffSD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 813
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoE View Post
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/
Wow that is huge for Californians. If that happens the antis in this state are going to stoke out.
  #307  
Old 01-13-2017, 7:28 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffSD View Post
Wow that is huge for Californians. If that happens the antis in this state are going to stoke out.
Yes and no.

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
  #308  
Old 01-14-2017, 1:11 AM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

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  
Old 01-14-2017, 2:59 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
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.
The fed has to have limited involvement to ensure our rights are protected but the states are not able to do what is right for the people in their state. I certainly don't want the fed telling us how to run the day to day in our state.

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  
Old 01-14-2017, 7:39 AM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Yes and no.

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.
".... 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 ...."


IANAL but that seems pretty clear language to me.
  #311  
Old 01-14-2017, 8:52 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post

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.
cvigue has it right. CA laws get trumped by the language in HR38 (assuming it passes as is). They can flail all they want, don't mean a thing.
__________________
  #312  
Old 01-14-2017, 11:30 AM
PhillyGunner PhillyGunner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Back East
Posts: 742
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

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  
Old 01-14-2017, 2:20 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
cvigue has it right. CA laws get trumped by the language in HR38 (assuming it passes as is). They can flail all they want, don't mean a thing.
I believe the laws WRT school grounds would still have force but not the 1000' imaginary radius laws.
  #314  
Old 01-14-2017, 4:07 PM
Cokebottle's Avatar
Cokebottle Cokebottle is offline
Señor Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: IE, CA
Posts: 32,373
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
".... 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 ...."

IANAL but that seems pretty clear language to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
cvigue has it right. CA laws get trumped by the language in HR38 (assuming it passes as is). They can flail all they want, don't mean a thing.
Which also seems to kill local AWB and NFA-like regs that are more restrictive than NFA...
Though it will does not cover purchase or receipt.
__________________
- Rich

Quote:
Originally Posted by dantodd View Post
A just government will not be overthrown by force or violence because the people have no incentive to overthrow a just government. If a small minority of people attempt such an insurrection to grab power and enslave the people, the RKBA of the whole is our insurance against their success.
  #315  
Old 01-14-2017, 4:44 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
I believe the laws WRT school grounds would still have force but not the 1000' imaginary radius laws.
Not sure I see how. You'll have to explain. I see:

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Which also seems to kill local AWB and NFA-like regs that are more restrictive than NFA...
.
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  
Old 01-14-2017, 6:48 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Not sure I see how. You'll have to explain.
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  
Old 01-14-2017, 6:54 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cokebottle View Post
Which also seems to kill local AWB and NFA-like regs that are more restrictive than NFA...
Though it will does not cover purchase or receipt.
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  
Old 01-14-2017, 7:05 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,355
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvigue View Post
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.
So the bill says if you carry you're not subject to 922q, but you're saying he suddenly is? Also, just because a state school exists at a location -- does that automatically mean the state own the land on which the school sits? Is it impossible for the state to have. e.g., a lease?

Quote:
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.
You'd have to be crazy, imo, to gamble on that immunity. I agree the first part of the sentence is encouraging:

"“(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  
Old 01-14-2017, 7:26 PM
cvigue cvigue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,525
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
So the bill says if you carry you're not subject to ...
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  
Old 01-15-2017, 12:10 AM
socalblue socalblue is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 811
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhillyGunner View Post
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.
Exactly. The draft bill to move suppressors from Tittle 2 to Title 1 does modify USC 927.
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 4:38 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy