[sfpcservice]

I just got the NRA-ILA email about this bill which if passed would require states to recognize each others CCW permits. Just wondering if this is old news or something new?

Being from the bay area and knowing we have a liberal president and congress, I'm not overwhelmingly enthused, but still hopefull. Would this mean CA residents can take the Utah trianing and then carry in CA?

Rob

[yellowfin]

I would hope so. Again, this looks like a long shot with the Unwanted One, but stranger things have happened.

[sorensen440]

I doubt very much that this will gain any traction

[VegasND]

While I would welcome reciprocity of concealed carry licenses similar to driver's license, marriage license, etc., I don't trust the federal government. Google 'Hughes Amendment' then realize that we must be extremely proactive and skeptical of anything our so-called 'friends' may do in Congress.

[BLFD1]

We can only hope! Still we need to make the calls and send the letters and emails to the right people..

[yellowfin]

I really wish it would pass because I'd love to visit the Jersey Shore again.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I just got the NRA-ILA email about this bill which if passed would require states to recognize each others CCW permits. Just wondering if this is old news or something new?

Being from the bay area and knowing we have a liberal president and congress, I'm not overwhelmingly enthused, but still hopefull. Would this mean CA residents can take the Utah trianing and then carry in CA?

Rob

It's new in the sense it has just been introduced in this Congress; it's old in the sense that it has been introduced before, and ignored.

As I read the text, I believe it applies only to, in your example, Utah licenses issued to Utah residents.

BTW, thank you for an excellent thread title. That makes it easy for others to find.

[dfletcher]

Originally Posted by sfpcservice

I just got the NRA-ILA email about this bill which if passed would require states to recognize each others CCW permits. Just wondering if this is old news or something new?

Being from the bay area and knowing we have a liberal president and congress, I'm not overwhelmingly enthused, but still hopefull. Would this mean CA residents can take the Utah trianing and then carry in CA?

Rob

I just did the Utah nonresident CCW. Of course the specifics if this passes are now just guesswork, but some states already make a distiction between honoring a resident CCW and nonresident CCW. Of the 30+ states that honor the Utah CCW, 4 do not honor the Utah nonresident CCW - Colorado and NH & 2 others I can't recall. So that particular exclusion is already known and used, I'd bet states like CA, NY, NJ & MA, etc push to have the reciprocity restricted to other state resident CCW.

[CCWFacts]

It has been introduced every session for the past several years. It gets more traction every year, but still not enough to pass. It's a great bill. It does not create any kind of Federal CCW. It would probably not let a CA resident carry in CA on a UT non-res permit. But it's still a great bill.

Please write your reps to support it, even though it's very unlikely to pass and be signed into law this session.

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

It has been introduced every session for the past several years. It gets more traction every year, but still not enough to pass. It's a great bill. It does not create any kind of Federal CCW. It would probably not let a CA resident carry in CA on a UT non-res permit. But it's still a great bill.

Please write your reps to support it, even though it's very unlikely to pass and be signed into law this session.

Even post-Heller I doubt this will pass until after the 2nd is incorporated against the states. That event would give closet supporters of this bill "cover" to pass it. Once passed, it would instantly make for separate classes non-residents vs. residents of states, especially if the non-residents are from "Shall Issue" states... A legal challenge would be put forth and the quickest, easiest remedy would be to make it apply so that anyone who holds a governmentally issued CCW license/permit can carry in their home state, subject to their home state's rules/laws.

I just don't see this bill being passed any time soon though... the 2A has to be incorporated and the general public has to become used to the idea...

[CCWFacts]

You're right about Heller possibly giving "cover" to legislators (at the fed. and state levels) to pass better legislation. That may help us some. You can even hear, after Heller, Obama said, "maybe the DC ban went too far". It does change the boundaries of the debate.

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by CCWFacts

You're right about Heller possibly giving "cover" to legislators (at the fed. and state levels) to pass better legislation. That may help us some. You can even hear, after Heller, Obama said, "maybe the DC ban went too far". It does change the boundaries of the debate.

The Heller decision only got the ball rolling. It's the decision (whatever it may be) that incorporates the 2A against the states in light of Heller that should provide the "cover" needed. The good news is that Heller really did change the boundaries. Now the question that needs to be answered is "where is the new boundary?" Unfortunately, that question will likely take either a few more landmark cases or many years to several decades to determine.

I don't know if I'm going to be alive that long - and I'm not old...

very short bill and doesn't require residency in the issuing state.

[yellowfin]

The rest of the states don't need "cover"; the majority of the populations of other states aren't hoplophobic like they are here. They are perfectly used to the 2nd amendment meaning what it says it means and carry rights being the norm. It's only a handful of places that are the problem. I bet if you asked people in the free states you probably would have more than not already expecting that the 2nd does apply already...if you weren't from here you would probably find the idea of selective incorporation ridiculous. It really is a ridiculous concept when you think about it.

[CSDGuy]

Originally Posted by DDT

very short bill and doesn't require residency in the issuing state.

The title makes it so... thus easy to remedy too, I'd think.

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

The rest of the states don't need "cover"; the majority of the populations of other states aren't hoplophobic like they are here. They are perfectly used to the 2nd amendment meaning what it says it means and carry rights being the norm. It's only a handful of places that are the problem.

Very true, however, national politics is a whole different ballgame.

The best result would be that CA would almost certainly become shall-issue if this passes.

36+ Million residents. If we take a conservative estimate of 5% of those citizens obtaining a CCW at $100/renewal and a 4 year permit. That is $45 million per year of revenue. While this isn't a huge amount it is too much for the state to pass up if they'd have to honor non-resident UT and FL permits.

Originally Posted by CSDGuy

The title makes it so... thus easy to remedy too, I'd think.

Damn, missed that. Still doesn't state that they'd have to be resident of UT (for our example) to get reciprocity in all other states that issue other than home state. So you'd be covered in 47 states but just not the most important one. Guess we'll have to work on the title if it actually gets out of committee.

[7x57]

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

I bet if you asked people in the free states you probably would have more than not already expecting that the 2nd does apply already...if you weren't from here you would probably find the idea of selective incorporation ridiculous. It really is a ridiculous concept when you think about it.

I think most gun owners anywhere believe it applies down at some gut level--just listen to people talk about their 2A rights. The bulk of the discussion will be about matters of state law. Or the old idea that "all you need is a copy of the Second Amendment in your pocket and the police will have to leave you alone"--among the misconceptions of that beautifully naive idea is the assumption that the BoR applies against the states. Even among people who understand incorporation, it seems to be spoken of as a legal maneuver required to get something they already have a moral right to. I bet this is the same when you talk to other interest groups about other Constitutional rights, too.

Basically, the 14A said that the founder's idea--that the US BoR would protect you from the Federal government and each state's BoR or other Constitutional provisions would protect you from your state--was demonstrably not working in the ex-slave states. It was a failure of Federalism, to be honest, and I'm all for Federalism. So it said that the US BoR applied against the states as well--basically, reducing the independence of the states somewhat to find a more optimal balance between Federalism and Nationalism. That's what it was expected to do, and interestingly enough it seems to have entered the public consciousness that it does. Great--it was *supposed* to enter the public consciousness. It's a *very good thing* when people's instinctive belief about their government is congruent with the facts.

The problem is the outright nullification of the privileges and immunities clause by the ex-slavers (we can't be too mean to the people that invented that insane exegesis), and then the kind of shamefaced fiction of selective incorporation by some justices too cowardly to admit the problem have *not* entered the public consciousness. That's a *good* thing in that the brain damage should be kept as confined as possible, and because we don't want people to like and accept the system working that way. But it's a *bad* thing because it deceives people about the law that rules them, and makes them much less aware that they have to fight for certain rights they believe they already have.

There is probably no hope of restoring the P&I clause, but I suppose once the 2A is incorporated there isn't much left to fix. The 3A definitely, but it doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment. The 3A is the Milliard Fillmore of the BoR anyway. :-)

7x57

[mblat]

Originally Posted by DDT

The best result would be that CA would almost certainly become shall-issue if this passes.

36+ Million residents. If we take a conservative estimate of 5% of those citizens obtaining a CCW at $100/renewal and a 4 year permit. That is $45 million per year of revenue. While this isn't a huge amount it is too much for the state to pass up if they'd have to honor non-resident UT and FL permits.

Knowing how they manage $$$ in California $45 mil per year program would probably be losing money....

[yellowfin]

Why exactly was/is the P&I clause subordinated or undermined? That clause alone should be used to force shall issue in this state without incorporation at all, merely being equal access to a license regardless of what it is a license to do.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

Why exactly was/is the P&I clause subordinated or undermined? That clause alone should be used to force shall issue in this state without incorporation at all, merely being equal access to a license regardless of what it is a license to do.

You keep missing the point - all of this has been tried, and rejected at the Circuit Court level, usually based on SCOTUS decisions Cruikshank and Presser.

You're right, it should work that way. I think the courts were wrong the first time they did that - but until Supreme Court precedent is nullified, lower courts cannot accept the 14th Amendment arguments.

Originally Posted by mblat

Knowing how they manage $$$ in California $45 mil per year program would probably be losing money....

Well, it could keep the private DMV in the capitol building going.

[yellowfin]

Cruikshank and Presser are void. The courts just need to stand up and say that.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

Cruikshank and Presser are void. The courts just need to stand up and say that.

That's certainly what Heller would appear to say. When the courts DO say that, we get incorporation. But courts need a case to do that in - thus the importance of Nordyke.

It's a pain being right and having to wait for official confirmation, but that's the system we have.

[yellowfin]

They get plenty of cases but keep chickening out.

[Librarian]

Originally Posted by yellowfin2

They get plenty of cases but keep chickening out.

SCOTUS screwed this up in 1886. Another couple of months really isn't important.

Breathe. Take up knitting or yoga. Shoot clay pigeons.

Use your energy to write a script for a video we can use to persuade Californians to stop voting for gun-grabbers. (Remember visual, not verbal - arguing court cases produces the MEGO reaction: My Eyes Glaze Over. [ Well, not mine, but I have a high tolerance for dry discussion.] )

Being annoyed at judicial timidity is not going to bring a favorable resolution any faster.