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 > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-01-2011, 8:12 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default National CCW through HR218/LEOSA summary thread

For those of you who don’t want to read through the epic thread that caused this, here is the short version.

(if you want to read the full 2000 or so post thread you can go here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=238977 )

Back in 2009 a discussion on the Law Enforcement Safety Act HR218 prompted an idea:

What if regular law abiding people could be considered law enforcement officers under HR218 and have the same ability to carry concealed firearms across state lines?

For info on HR218 (the LEOSA) please read this document:

http://www.ccwforall.com/pages/docum...econcealed.pdf

Initially, the idea was to look for a state which had an existing class of law enforcement officer which had statutory powers of arrest, did not have POST requirements, and did not have prohibitions against the employment of non residents as law enforcement officers.

While a few states did have potential, we eventually decided that the best course of action was to draft model legislation which created a category of law enforcement officer with carefully tailored attributes to minimize legal exposure to the issuing state, restrain any ‘cowboy’ behavior by participants, and effectively use federal law to grant universal CCW and pre-emption of state and local restrictions on the possession and carey of firearms.

After extensive research and outreach (about a year worth actually) we decided that Montana was the ideal state for our purposes. So, a very talented lawyer (hat tip to Jay) drafted a rather masterful bit of model legislation.

You can see the model legislation here:

http://www.ccwforall.com/pages/docum...ana%20v4.0.pdf

At this point, to properly structure our activities we have incorporated the New Promethean Initiative, as a non profit public benefit corporation for the advancement of human rights and civil liberties (we will be filing for 501c3 status on Tuesday 7/5/2011). By the time we’re done The cost of incorporating and setting everything us should total about 1.4K

To make this happen, we need to cover the ‘shoe leather’ costs ($3000) involved in running around, getting feedback on the ground in Montana, learning of specific concerns from legislators, and the 2nd amendment community which will allow us to adjust the model legislation to have the best possible chance of introduction and adoption.

So, We’re passing the hat, We have already raised about 2K, and need to raise another 2.4K to get this fully underway.

If this is a project you'd like to support, we can receive paypal donations at DonateNPI@gmail.com

and we can receive checks at:

New Promethean Initiative
P.O. Box 811353
Los Angeles CA 90081

Please note, We are not yet a 501c3 organization, but we expect to be one by the end of fiscal 2011. If we are granted 501c3 status, donations made before 501c3 status was granted will become retroactively tax deductible.


Thank You

Please feel free to share this and spread the word, and if you have any questions, please let me know so I can answer them and update this accordingly.

Quote:
---- Summary Paragraph work in progress for cross posting ----

We are working on a project that uses the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (HR218) in conjunction with Montana state law to create an alternative framework that provides nation wide concealed carry in compliance with existing Federal law.

This will be accomplished through model legislation which grants extremely limited statutory powers of arrest to a new category of law enforcement officer. The model legislation removes barriers which limit law enforcement status to state residents, and addresses a number of minor employment and regulatory issues in a comprehensive manner. Ultimately, allowing those U.S. citizens who are able to pass a NICS background check to be able to legally keep and bear concealed firearms in any US state or territory..

Make no mistake, the statutory powers of arrest only will exist under the supervision of a full time officer and while serving a Warrant issued by a judge... I.e. They legally exist, but only in such extremely limited circumstances that from a practical standpoint it will never come up.

There will be No 'playing cop', No badges will be issued (just photo ID) and any miss-use or abuse of credentials will be grounds for immediate revocation.

This Project will not alter or infringe in any way upon the existing Montana CCW permitting system.

The model legislation can be viewed here:

http://www.ccwforall.com/pages/docum...ana%20v4.0.pdf

The calguns summary thread can be found here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...36#post6704636
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance

Last edited by AJAX22; 07-11-2011 at 4:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-01-2011, 8:43 PM
Funtimes's Avatar
Funtimes Funtimes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 947
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What did your attorney say about being exempt while averaging under 5,000 gross receipts?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor.
Sig Certified Handgun / Active Shooter Instructor.

2L Student. Nothing is legal advice, just simply my 2 cents worth of opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-01-2011, 9:04 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Funtimes View Post
What did your attorney say about being exempt while averaging under 5,000 gross receipts?
Not an option with our larger game plan unfortunately.

The Montana project is our #1 priority, but once we get it funded and in motion on the ground, we will have 1.5 years before the next Montana legislative session... and we intend to be making significant headway in the fight for the 2A the entire time.

In the background right now there is a massive national 2A organization project underway, and it is absolutely crucial that we jump through all the correct hoops with the NPI's tax status to make sure that it is not derailed.

I can't get into specifics on the larger project yet, we have six months worth of work to do before we can make the big announcement... but it will be significant.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-02-2011, 4:56 AM
sandwich sandwich is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 72
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sounds great and looking forward to your updates. Thanks for all that you do AJAX22!

P.S. You'll probably want to spell "carry" instead of "carey" in the original post....
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-02-2011, 5:01 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Thanks, spelling was never my strong suit, I come from a long line of phonetic misspelling engineer types.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-02-2011, 5:22 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vacaville, CA
Posts: 3,528
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

This deserves a sticky, no?

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-02-2011, 10:01 AM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Thanks Ajaxx, you're awesome!
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-02-2011, 10:12 AM
tintguy tintguy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 265
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I just sent some money. Thanks Ajaxx
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-02-2011, 10:14 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

double post

Last edited by AJAX22; 07-02-2011 at 5:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-02-2011, 10:17 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Thank you, everything has been a group effort to get it to this point...

And a lot of people have put in a lot of hours to get us to this point, many hands make light work.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-03-2011, 11:23 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Please share this on other forums and boards.

Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-03-2011, 12:01 PM
gunsmith gunsmith is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Northern Nevada
Posts: 1,923
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Please share this on other forums and boards.

Thanks
OMG!! I did, I put it on a private gun forum I'm on and 80% hate the idea, they all think otherwise law abiding ccw'ers will all of a sudden become "barney fifes".

I'm not the greatest messenger for this idea I guess.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-03-2011, 12:08 PM
dieselpower's Avatar
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 10,579
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
OMG!! I did, I put it on a private gun forum I'm on and 80% hate the idea, they all think otherwise law abiding ccw'ers will all of a sudden become "barney fifes".

I'm not the greatest messenger for this idea I guess.
a lot of gun owners dont trust gun owners... thats when you know they are a Democrat. They are the ones who own guns and vote for more gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-03-2011, 12:20 PM
r3dn3ck r3dn3ck is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,906
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Puttin my $ on the table for this one. Donation coming.

BTW, the name of the "initiative" is super friggin awesome.

Last edited by r3dn3ck; 07-03-2011 at 12:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-03-2011, 12:24 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Make sure when you share this idea that they understand that statutory powers of arrest only will exist under the supervision of a full time officer and while serving a Warrent issued by a judge...

I.e. They legally exist, but only in such extremely limited circumstances that from a practical standpoint it will never come up.

No 'playing cop' will occur.

No badges will be issued (just photo ID)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-03-2011, 12:31 PM
Quser.619's Avatar
Quser.619 Quser.619 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 781
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Awesome idea. Signed up on your site & will donate to such an original, out-of-the-box idea when I have extra cash. Please keep us notified & thanks for starting this new thread!
__________________
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’

— Patrick Henry

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-03-2011, 1:38 PM
JDoe JDoe is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,824
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Make sure when you share this idea that they understand that statutory powers of arrest only will exist under the supervision of a full time officer and while serving a Warrent issued by a judge...

I.e. They legally exist, but only in such extremely limited circumstances that from a practical standpoint it will never come up.

No 'playing cop' will occur.

No badges will be issued (just photo ID)
Would it be possible to have someone draft a paragraph or two that we could post on other forums? Something short that contains the essence of the project and that answers the common objections would go a long way to get people to this and the epic thread.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-03-2011, 1:40 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

I'll get to working on that immediately
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-03-2011, 2:10 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
What we are working on is a Project to use the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act (HR218) to create an alternative structure to provide national concealed carry in compliance with existing Federal law.

We have drafted model legislation for the state of Montana which grants extremely limited statutory powers of arrest to a new category of law enforcement officer. This removes restrictions which limit officer employment to state residents, and deals with a number of other minor issues in a comprehensive manner targeted at allowing anyone who can pass an NCIS background check being able to concealed carry a firearm across state lines..

Make no mistake, the statutory powers of arrest only will exist under the supervision of a full time officer and while serving a Warrant issued by a judge... I.e. They legally exist, but only in such extremely limited circumstances that from a practical standpoint it will never come up.

There will be No 'playing cop' will occur. No badges will be issued (just photo ID) and any miss use or abuse of credentials will be grounds for immediate revocation.

The model legislation can be viewed here:

http://www.ccwforall.com/pages/docum...ana%20v4.0.pdf

The calguns summary thread can be found here:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...36#post6704636
I may be a bit too close to this to write a good quick and dirty summary, how does this work for an intro to cross post?
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance

Last edited by AJAX22; 07-04-2011 at 6:59 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-03-2011, 3:56 PM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

I have a question about the powers of arrest for a special constitutional officer.

Quote:
(4) the officer witnesses a gross violation of the enumerated constitutional rights found in the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution.
What exactly does this mean?
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-03-2011, 3:59 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychGuy274 View Post
I have a question about the powers of arrest for a special constitutional officer.



What exactly does this mean?
That language was removed from the current draft.... apparently we don't have the most current version posted to the website...

I'll hassle the webmaster.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:01 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
INTRODUCED BY ___________________________________
AN ACT CREATING A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MEMBER KNOWN AS SPECIAL CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER; AMENDING SECTIONS 7-32-201, 7-32-212 AND 7-32-234 MCA; ADDING NEW SECTIONS 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209 TO MCA; AND PROVIDING AN IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Legislature declares that it is in the best interest of the People of the State of Montana to create a new law enforcement agency member known as auxiliary reserve officer.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:
Section 1. Section 7-32-201, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-201. Definitions.
As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Auxiliary officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform but is not limited to the performance of such functions as civil defense, search and rescue, office duties, crowd and traffic control, and crime prevention activities.
(2) “Council” means the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
(3) “General law enforcement duties” means patrol operations performed for detection, prevention, and suppression of crime and the enforcement of criminal and traffic codes of this state and its local governments.
(4) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement service provided directly by a local government.
(5) “Law enforcement officer” means a sworn, full-time, employed member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210.
(6) “Reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who is a peace officer, as defined in 46-1-202, and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-210, only when authorized to perform these functions as a representative of the law enforcement agency.
(7) “Special services officer” means an unsworn, part-time, volunteer member of a law enforcement agency who may perform functions, other than general law enforcement duties, that require specialized skills, training, and qualifications, who may be required to train with a firearm, and who may carry a firearm while on assigned duty as provided in 7-32-239.
(8) “Auxiliary reserve officer” means a sworn, part-time member of a law enforcement agency who is not a peace officer as defined in 46-1-202, and who engages in the prevention, detection and investigation of violations of law, who may carry a firearm as provided in 7-32-241 and has arrest authority, as described in 46-6-209.”
Section 2. Section 7-32-212, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-212. Prohibition on reduction of full-time officers.
A local government may not reduce the authorized number of full-time law enforcement officers through the appointment or utilization of reserve officers or auxiliary reserve officers.”
Section 3. Section 7-32-234, MCA, is amended to read:
“7-32-234. Exceptions.
Provisions of 7-32-211, 7-32-213, and 7-32-214 do not apply to auxiliary officers, to special services officers, to auxiliary reserve officers, to sworn volunteer peace officers who are not assigned to general law enforcement duties, or to members of a posse organized to quell public disturbance or domestic violence in accordance with 7-32-2121(6).”
Section 4. Following new Sections 7-32-240, 7-32-241, 7-32-242, 7-32-243, 7-32-244, 7-32-245, 7-32-246, and 46-6-209, are hereby added to MCA:
7-32-240. LEOSA Qualification.
It is the express intent of the Legislature that each of the following offices qualify as a “qualified law enforcement officer” a such term is used in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004: (1) law enforcement officer, (2) special services officer, and (3) auxiliary reserve officer.
7-32-241. Auxiliary reserve officers -- authorization -- role.
(1) Auxiliary reserve officers:
(a) are subordinate to full-time law enforcement officers;
(b) may carry a weapon while on assigned duty and while off duty upon successful completion of training described in 7-32-245;
(c) have arrest authority described in 46-6-209.
(2) A local government may authorize auxiliary reserve officers only on the orders and at the direction of the chief law enforcement administrator of the local government.
7-32-242. Qualifications for appointment as auxiliary reserve officer.
To be appointed an auxiliary reserve officer, a person:
(1) must be a citizen of the United States or legal resident of the United States in good standing;
(2) must be at least 18 years of age;
(3) must be fingerprinted, and a search must be made of local, state, and national fingerprint files to disclose any criminal record;
(4) may not have been convicted of a crime for which the person could have been imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison;
(5) must be of good moral character as determined by a thorough background investigation through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System;
(6) must have completed the training described in 7-32-244; and
(7) must have paid the application fee, completed the appointment application, and signed the employment agreement, in each case as established by the chief law enforcement administrator.
7-32-243. Auxiliary reserve officer employment.
(1) A local government authorized by its chief law enforcement administrator to appoint auxiliary reserve officers shall appoint any person that satisfies the qualifications for appointment as a special conditional officer set forth in 7-329-242.
(2) The application fee described in 7-329-242(1)(h) shall not exceed $___________ for applicants that are residents of the State of Montana, $_____________ for applicants that are not residents of the State of Montana, or $_________ for any applicant with prior military service.
(3) At the time of appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall take a formal oath of office.
(4) The appointment of auxiliary reserve officer shall be a salaried position with an annual salary equal to $1.00 per year.
(5) Any action taken by any auxiliary reserve officer that is not taken under the direct supervision, or at the express direction, of a law enforcement officer, shall be deemed action taken by the auxiliary reserve officer as a private citizen.
(6) An auxiliary reserve officer may only be terminated by the appointing agency in writing and for cause. Any of the following shall be deemed cause sufficient to termination an auxiliary reserve officer appointment: (a) the conviction of the auxiliary reserve officer of a crime for which a person may be imprisoned in a federal penitentiary or state prison, and (b) the incurrence by the auxiliary reserve officer of any civil or criminal liability involving a firearm, or other deadly weapon, assault, or battery.
(7) In the event of any natural disaster or state of emergency, the governor of the State of Montana or an issuing agency may declare a recall of all auxiliary reserve officers appointed by such agency. In the event of such declaration, any auxiliary reserve officers notified thereof in writing, shall make a good faith effort to report to such issuing agency in person as soon as practical; provided however, such auxiliary reserve officer shall have to provide for his/her own food, boarding and other provisions. It shall be the responsibility of all auxiliary reserve officers to maintain and verify that the issuing agency has current contact information on file should an emergency recall be declared.
7-32-244. Auxiliary reserve officer training. Prior to appointment, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed ___ hours of training, which may be completed online and which shall include, without limitation, the following subject matters:
7-32-245. Auxiliary reserve officer firearm training. Prior to carrying a weapon while on duty or off duty, an auxiliary reserve officer shall have successfully completed the NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course, or, if no such course is then available, an equivalent course then certified by the National Rifle Association (or other association approved by the appointing agency), or any other course approved by the appointing agency.
7-32-246. Auxiliary reserve officers -- exemptions.
The authorization and appointment of auxiliary reserve officers shall be exempt from:
(1) any and all residency requirements;
(2) any collective bargaining agreements and/or participation requirements;
(3) any insurance participation or coverage requirements;
(4) any and all minimum wage requirements;
(5) any and all pension and retirement plan participation requirements;
(6) any and all minimum time on duty;
(7) all training, education, and certification standards outlined in 7-32-303; and
(8) any and all qualifying standards for employment promulgated by the Montana public safety officer standards and training council established in 2-15-2029.
46-6-209. Arrest by auxiliary reserve officer.
An auxiliary reserve officer may arrest a person when:
(1) the officer has an arrest warrant as defined in 46-1-202 commanding that the person be arrested;
(2) the arrest is made within the jurisdiction of the local government that authorized and appointed the officer; and
(3) the arrest is made under the direct supervision of a full-time law enforcement officer.
Section 4. Effective date. This act is effective on passage and approval.
- END -
________________________________________
Latest Version of HB _____ (HB__________)
Processed for the Web on _____________
New language in a bill appears underlined, deleted material appears stricken.
Sponsor names are handwritten on introduced bills, hence do not appear on the bill until it is reprinted.
This is the most current version...
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:22 PM
41magsnub 41magsnub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
OMG!! I did, I put it on a private gun forum I'm on and 80% hate the idea, they all think otherwise law abiding ccw'ers will all of a sudden become "barney fifes".

I'm not the greatest messenger for this idea I guess.
I'm one of those on that forum and no you are not. You are misrepresenting the objections. We are not worried about the Barney Fife crap you are talking about. I'm a Montanan and frankly, I am not willing to risk screwing up our CCW process for other states that can't seem to pass it themselves and want to back door things. It is cowardly.. fix your own state. Do it the right way. If you can't fix your own law, either go national for CCW reciprocity or move.

And to the guy calling anyone who opposes this democrats... grow up. Most of us over there have CCW permits and support the RKBA..

Last edited by 41magsnub; 07-03-2011 at 4:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:23 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
I'm one of those on that forum and no you are not. You are misrepresenting the objections. We are not worried about the Barney Fife crap you are talking about. I'm a Montanan and frankly, I am not willing to risk screwing up our CCW process for another state that can't seem to pass it themselves and want to back door things. Frankly it is cowardly.. fix your own state.
How well does your CCW permit work when you travel to NYC? or Washington DC? or Chicago? or if you ever want to go to CA to visit?

*** edit ***

I want to be clear, I'm not trying to be a jerk and I can see how this may come off seeming selfish... but this will in no way impact the CCW process for Montana, and will simply provide a mechanism whereby you can gain a credential to allow you to CCW in all 50 states.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance

Last edited by AJAX22; 07-03-2011 at 4:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:30 PM
41magsnub 41magsnub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Nice, but you are not addressing what I said.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:34 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Also, 41magsnub isn't a Dem, he was one of the guys who ponied up to help me get ahold of the 86 FOPA vote footage... So be respectful.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:36 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
Nice, but you are not addressing what I said.
What specifically would you like to have addressed?
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:36 PM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
Nice, but you are not addressing what I said.
OK, I'll address it.

You think it's that easy? To just 'vote them out' or just 'move?' We fight tooth and nail in this state because we're a minority backed into a corner and we're constantly being prodded by the rabid anti-gun officials.

This isn't a project to find loop holes to fix 'our problems,' this has a greater national benefit.
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:45 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Preiotstan, Commiefornia
Posts: 4,231
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunsmith View Post
OMG!! I did, I put it on a private gun forum I'm on and 80% hate the idea, they all think otherwise law abiding ccw'ers will all of a sudden become "barney fifes".

I'm not the greatest messenger for this idea I guess.
Likely because they can easily obtain ccw's unlike the majority of us Kalifornians.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:50 PM
41magsnub 41magsnub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I do not think it is "that easy", no sane person does. However, there is a real risk here. In Montana CCW is somewhat tenuous, our legislature is filled with a lot of idiots who will listen to the various police officer associations when they go to change our CCW law as a reaction. When our permitless carry bill was in debate this year (which failed), many lawmakers including many republicans were surprised and raised concerns about the current CCW process (you mean there isn't a arduous training requirement???). All we need is to have some news stories about MT issuing police powers with our CCW permits to get the whole works shut down. I am not willing to risk what we have for California.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:54 PM
41magsnub 41magsnub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Okay, I read this a bit wrong.. it does not come with the CCW permit, it is a separate deal. It is still cowardly and wrong, and I will oppose it if it ever makes it to the legislature.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:55 PM
RobG's Avatar
RobG RobG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Preiotstan, Commiefornia
Posts: 4,231
iTrader: 90 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
I'm one of those on that forum and no you are not. You are misrepresenting the objections. We are not worried about the Barney Fife crap you are talking about. I'm a Montanan and frankly, I am not willing to risk screwing up our CCW process for other states that can't seem to pass it themselves and want to back door things. It is cowardly.. fix your own state. Do it the right way. If you can't fix your own law, either go national for CCW reciprocity or move.

And to the guy calling anyone who opposes this democrats... grow up. Most of us over there have CCW permits and support the RKBA..
Its easy for you to say because you don't have a large majority of voters and politicians that oppose gun ownership. "We" are trying to fix things but, you cannot do that overnight. There are decades of anti-gun legislation on the books. Montana has a smaller population than some of Californias largest cities. And those are the ones that oppose guns in general. How exactly do you think this would affect Montana ccw's negatively? Is there information that you can state as fact or is it simply fear?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:58 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
I do not think it is "that easy", no sane person does. However, there is a real risk here. In Montana CCW is somewhat tenuous, our legislature is filled with a lot of idiots who will listen to the various police officer associations when they go to change our CCW law as a reaction. When our permitless carry bill was in debate this year (which failed), many lawmakers including many republicans were surprised and raised concerns about the current CCW process (you mean there isn't a arduous training requirement???). All we need is to have some news stories about MT issuing police powers with our CCW permits to get the whole works shut down. I am not willing to risk what we have for California.
I want to be very clear, this will be in no way attached or associated to the present Montana CCW system.

The Montana CCW system will remain entirely untouched.

As to concerns regarding a lack of training requirement, rest assured by the time this is implemented there will be some form of required training (the legislature will absolutely require it in order to be passed).
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-03-2011, 4:59 PM
dotalchemy's Avatar
dotalchemy dotalchemy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Internment Camp 94121, PRK
Posts: 958
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
Okay, I read this a bit wrong.. it does not come with the CCW permit, it is a separate deal. It is still cowardly and wrong, and I will oppose it if it ever makes it to the legislature.
And opposing it is of course your right.

You may wish to reflect on your reasons as to why though, as after admitting that you read a section wrong, you're still referring to this as "cowardly and wrong".

Again, it's your right to feel that way, but I know I would personally like to know why it makes you feel that way.
__________________
1928 Tula 91/30 | 1944 Izhevsk M44 | As yet unknown 91/30 and M44 - still in the box | 1976 Walther P-1
...Daddy, what else did you leave for me?

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it" - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:09 PM
Barkoff Barkoff is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Central CA
Posts: 498
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

OK, I need this in childlike terms I guess.

If you pass this for CCW holders in Montana this will give them the right to carry anywhere, correct? They would be able to circumvent CA opposition to out of state CCW holders from Montana. But wouldn't CA still have to pass this act before Californians would be able to travel to other states and enjoy the same freedoms?

This whole reciprocity things sucks anyway. I wish CalGuns or the NRA would reach out to some of these states and convince them that CCW holders in CA would love to honor their states CCW's, why punish friends who think alike, and reward the antis who deny them? The liberals in CA no doubt are thrilled that other states demand reciprocity, before granting Californians to carry in other states.. I think by accepting CA CCW licenses, in say Florida, this would create more pressure to think about reciprocity in CA than just tit for tat retaliation.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:21 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

First, this has nothing to do with CCW permitting.

If Montana passes this it will allow the state of Montana to employ individuals (from any state) who pass a background check and undergo a (to be determined) training regimen, to be employed as a special 'auxiliary reserve' officer for the princely sum of $1 per year.

This would bypass state and local restrictions in all states and territories.

No reciprocity arrangements would be required, CA, NY, IL, etc. wouldn't have a say in it... if MT green lit the employment, then that individual would be able to CCW in any state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkoff View Post
OK, I need this in childlike terms I guess.

If you pass this for CCW holders in Montana this will give them the right to carry anywhere, correct? They would be able to circumvent CA opposition to out of state CCW holders from Montana. But wouldn't CA still have to pass this act before Californians would be able to travel to other states and enjoy the same freedoms?

This whole reciprocity things sucks anyway. I wish CalGuns or the NRA would reach out to some of these states and convince them that CCW holders in CA would love to honor their states CCW's, why punish friends who think alike, and reward the antis who deny them? The liberals in CA no doubt are thrilled that other states demand reciprocity, before granting Californians to carry in other states.. I think by accepting CA CCW licenses, in say Florida, this would create more pressure to think about reciprocity in CA than just tit for tat retaliation.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:22 PM
41magsnub 41magsnub is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I feel for you guys in CA, I really do. I truly hope you guys prevail someday on CCW permits and all the other issues you have.

Just to make sure I understand this, the gist is to create another class of LEO in Montana that has no responsibilities or powers in the LEO arena. The purpose of which is circumventing CCW laws in other states. In short... it is a CCW permit by another name.

Do I have that right?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:33 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 41magsnub View Post
I feel for you guys in CA, I really do. I truly hope you guys prevail someday on CCW permits and all the other issues you have.

Just to make sure I understand this, the gist is to create another class of LEO in Montana that has no responsibilities or powers in the LEO arena. The purpose of which is circumventing CCW laws in other states. In short... it is a CCW permit by another name.

Do I have that right?
Its much more broad than a traditional state issued CCW permit, and circumvents quite a bit more than just CCW restrictions (although that is the primary goal).

It exempts the individual from state and local AW laws, local restrictions, rifle/shotgun carry prohibitions, AOW carry prohibitions, SBS/SBR carry prohibitions and allows bearers to have the equivalent of unassailable universal CCW reciprocity even in the most restrictive cities in the US.

There are some other Montana specific benefits I do not want to broadcast but will be more than happy to discuss on the phone.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:34 PM
thrillhouse700 thrillhouse700 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 4,309
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkoff View Post
OK, I need this in childlike terms I guess.

If you pass this for CCW holders in Montana this will give them the right to carry anywhere, correct? They would be able to circumvent CA opposition to out of state CCW holders from Montana. But wouldn't CA still have to pass this act before Californians would be able to travel to other states and enjoy the same freedoms?

This whole reciprocity things sucks anyway. I wish CalGuns or the NRA would reach out to some of these states and convince them that CCW holders in CA would love to honor their states CCW's, why punish friends who think alike, and reward the antis who deny them? The liberals in CA no doubt are thrilled that other states demand reciprocity, before granting Californians to carry in other states.. I think by accepting CA CCW licenses, in say Florida, this would create more pressure to think about reciprocity in CA than just tit for tat retaliation.
From what i gather from this, HR218 lets LE CCW nationally (I think), this initiative will make people a "Constitutional Officer" Considered LE. So Under HR218 you would be able to CCW. If you read the PDF it makes it clearer (for me at least).
__________________
"I *love* the idea of DOJ buyback money being used to buy guns for kids. " - Steadyrock
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-03-2011, 5:36 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillhouse700 View Post
From what i gather from this, HR218 lets LE CCW nationally (I think), this initiative will make people a "Constitutional Officer" Considered LE. So Under HR218 you would be able to CCW. If you read the PDF it makes it clearer (for me at least).
the PDF on the website is not the most current variation... we changed up some of the wording and the title...

I've contacted the webmaster and he will be uploading the most current version tonight.
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance

Last edited by AJAX22; 07-03-2011 at 5:58 PM..
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 2:44 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, 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 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.