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 10-14-2011, 12:17 AM
dipsomaniac dipsomaniac is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,295
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default hr822 vs hr2900

House Committee to vote on CCW Reciprocity Soon!

The House Judiciary Committee will soon be voting on legislation that will guarantee the right of citizens to carry firearms out-of-state. And the vote could come as early as today or tomorrow!

GOA has alerted you to H.R. 822 -- introduced by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) -- and explained the weaknesses in his bill. Many of you have taken action on our alerts and informed your Representative that there is a better approach.

That approach has been championed by Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, the author of H.R. 2900 -- or the Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act. The Broun bill has several advantages:

1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

2. Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit; and

3. Finally, the Broun bill does not rely on an expansive, erroneous interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Passing gun legislation that uses the Commerce Clause for authority could undercut efforts at promoting Firearms Freedom Act legislation throughout the country which specifically declares the Commerce Clause has no authority over the production of intrastate guns.

We need to continue putting heat on Congress, now that this reciprocity legislation is beginning to move. You’ve already sent your emails, but now it’s time to change things up and send postcards. If the House committee passes the Stearns bill, then it will probably come to the floor of the House some time next month.

So there is plenty of time to inundate Representatives’ offices with postcards and mail -- urging them to support H.R. 2900 -- or to amend the Stearns bill so that it contains the gun owners’ protections in the Broun bill.

So, GOA members, please be looking for the latest mailing from GOA headquarters which should begin arriving this week. And please take the enclosed postcard and send it to your Representative. Then, take the extra two postcards and have pro-gun family members and friends send them, as well. That will multiply your efforts by 200%. http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...en-hr-822.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-2011, 12:49 AM
Tacobandit Tacobandit is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 916
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I don't think it allows non-resident LTC permits to be valid here
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-14-2011, 1:51 AM
SilverBulletZ06 SilverBulletZ06 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 222
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I like 2900 better.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-14-2011, 2:06 AM
Decoligny's Avatar
Decoligny Decoligny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle, OK
Posts: 10,585
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dipsomaniac View Post

1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;

2. Broun also protects the right of gun owners in non-permit states like Vermont and allows them to carry out-of-state without a permit;
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogsp...en-hr-822.html

HR2900 does no such thing. The full text of the bill is linked below. Unless I am just unable to read coherently at 3 am, I can't find either of the two above mentioned benefits listed in this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-2900
__________________

If you haven't seen it with your own eyes,
or heard it with your own ears,
don't make it up with your small mind,
or spread it with your big mouth.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-14-2011, 2:08 AM
ALSystems's Avatar
ALSystems ALSystems is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: On the Far Side of the Moon
Posts: 1,160
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Interesting
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-14-2011, 6:54 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,383
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

First I've heard if 2900.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-14-2011, 8:13 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,383
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decoligny View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dipsomaniac View Post
1. It would allow residents of California, New Jersey and other “may issue” states to get out-of-state carry permits (say, from Florida or Utah) and carry in their home states -- an benefit they would not enjoy under the Stearns’ bill;
HR2900 does no such thing. The full text of the bill is linked below. Unless I am just unable to read coherently at 3 am, I can't find either of the two above mentioned benefits listed in this bill.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h112-2900

Are you sure?
Quote:
‘(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.
Sounds like that to me, but I did have to read it more than once, Am I off?

If your OOS LTC says you cannot carry in any place other than within the state it was issued I would agree, but if your OOS LTC does not have other restrictions, in accordance with this bill, it would be legal in any state.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-14-2011, 8:20 AM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,684
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm guessing if the bill goes anywhere they'd eventually end up with the drivers license template. I can't see the Senate going along with something that lets may issue state residents carry in their own states on LTCs from another state. There are pessimists that suggests that some may issue states would scrap their LTC systems entirely to avoid nonresident carry. Hard to say what will eventually happen. Truthfully I don't expect any national reciprocity bill to pass the Senate, but I'd like to be wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-14-2011, 8:39 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

It took me reading H.R. 2900 Sec 926D paragraphs (1) & (2) seven times before I understood what the heck the bill is supposed to do.

Paragraph (1) is directed at people who have a license from any state, may carry concealed in all 50 states.
Paragraph (2) is directed to people who do not have a carry license and can't get one from their home state, like citizens of Vermont, may carry concealed in all 50 states.

I would say that, Yes, there is a huge difference between the Sterns HR 822 and this bill H.R. 2900.

HR 2900 would enable California citizens to carry in California with an out of state resident permit/license.

My understanding was that the authors of the Sterns bill (HR 822) worded it carefully as to not moot the ongoing right-to-carry civil litigation that is in motion. They want the Supreme Court to answer the question [Does the 2A right entitle lawful citizens to carry weapons in public for self defense]. This is a very important question and it would explicitly expand the scope of the Second Amendment right.

If congress passed HR 2900 somehow, it would appear that we would get carry, and perhaps we could still arrive at SCOTUS via another route.
__________________


Last edited by Crom; 10-14-2011 at 1:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-14-2011, 8:58 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,383
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
It took me reading H.R. 2900 Sec 926D paragraphs (1) & (2) seven times before I understood what the heck the bill is supposed to do.
Glad I am not the only one.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-14-2011, 9:14 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

This is how I read it...
Quote:
`(1) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of any State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the terms of the license or permit, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.

`(2) A person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and is otherwise than as described in paragraph (1) entitled to carry a concealed firearm in and pursuant to the law of the State in which the person resides, may carry in any State a concealed firearm in accordance with the laws of the State in which the person resides, subject to the laws of the State in which the firearm is carried concerning specific types of locations in which firearms may not be carried.'.
The way I read this is...

Paragraph (1) makes it so that every person with a license to carry in any state, may carry in another state, a firearm concealed.

Paragraph (2) makes it so that every person without a license in their home state, who cannot get a carry license in the home state because that state doesn't issue carry licenses may carry in another state, a firearm concealed. So folks who live in Vermont and Illinois don't have to get a license from any other state by virtue of the fact that they can't get a license in their home state. If this bill passes with this language, it will create yet, another "be careful what you wish for" moment for Illinois...

And it took me to figure it out...

Oh, and I like this one better, but there are some issues I raised to Rep. Broun's legislative guy, and I'll go get those issues from the 2900 thread and edit in a little bit here.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-14-2011 at 9:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-14-2011, 9:28 AM
Ubermcoupe's Avatar
Ubermcoupe Ubermcoupe is offline
★ Junior G Man ✈
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: This information has been redacted in accordance with Title 18 USC Section 798
Posts: 12,383
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Blog Entries: 2
Default

So paragraph 2 relates to Vermont-meaning because VT doesn't require a LTC than VT citizens would be able to carry in another state without a LTC.
__________________
Hauoli Makahiki Hou


-------
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-14-2011, 9:29 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Okay, after carefully rereading the text another seven times I agree with Erik.

This is why I don't read bills. I'll stick to reading legal cases as I seem to have better luck with them.

I'll modify my previous post to eliminate any confusion for anyone who traces the thread out.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-14-2011, 9:49 AM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
Okay, after carefully rereading the text another seven times I agree with Erik.

This is why I don't read bills. I'll stick to reading legal cases as I seem to have better luck with them.

I'll modify my previous post to eliminate any confusion for anyone who traces the thread out.
And I updated my post (as promised) too... I wouldn't guarantee it that way, but that is what I figure. The language in (2) needs to be clarified so people (like me) could decipher it better.

Erik.

Last edited by Window_Seat; 10-14-2011 at 9:54 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-14-2011, 10:42 AM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,219
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
This is how I read it...

The way I read this is...

Paragraph (1) makes it so that every person with a license to carry in any state, may carry in another state, a firearm concealed.

Paragraph (2) makes it so that every person without a license in their home state, who cannot get a carry license in the home state because that state doesn't issue carry licenses may carry in another state, a firearm concealed. So folks who live in Vermont and Illinois don't have to get a license from any other state by virtue of the fact that they can't get a license in their home state. If this bill passes with this language, it will create yet, another "be careful what you wish for" moment for Illinois...

And it took me to figure it out...

Oh, and I like this one better, but there are some issues I raised to Rep. Broun's legislative guy, and I'll go get those issues from the 2900 thread and edit in a little bit here.

Erik.
So what does that do for ppl in CA where LTCs exist yet are not available to most ppl?
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:16 AM
wheels's Avatar
wheels wheels is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,292
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ubermcoupe View Post
So paragraph 2 relates to Vermont-meaning because VT doesn't require a LTC than VT citizens would be able to carry in another state without a LTC.
It would be great if the Constitutional carry states would just add a restriction - (like glasses) for LTC on their drivers licenses/ID cards.

Example: (on the license)
Restriction - not eligible for use as a LTC

Would also give LEO a heads up that the holder may deserve further attention (ACLU would hate this aspect).
__________________
Quote:
The society that separates its scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:25 AM
dalriaden dalriaden is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Visalia
Posts: 4,556
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccmc View Post
I'm guessing if the bill goes anywhere they'd eventually end up with the drivers license template.
Pretty sure the OoS florida one is already like that.

except you mail in a passport photo where it says sample.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-14-2011, 11:56 AM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Untamed1972 View Post
So what does that do for ppl in CA where LTCs exist yet are not available to most ppl?
If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-14-2011, 12:07 PM
Untamed1972 Untamed1972 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 17,219
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.
Well that would definitely be sweet.....cuz I've got UT and AZ already!

Take that Sheriff Gore! LOL

Not that this bill prolly has any chance of passing tho. But one could dream. If it did I bet it would immediately face litigation from some state somehow, possibly even with an injuction making putting it on hold while it's sorted out.
__________________
"Freedom begins with an act of defiance"

Quote for the day:
Quote:
"..the mind is the weapon and the hand only its extention. Discipline your mind!" Master Hao, Chenrezi monastery, Valley of the Sun
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-14-2011, 1:31 PM
ccmc ccmc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,684
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dalriaden View Post
Pretty sure the OoS florida one is already like that.

except you mail in a passport photo where it says sample.
Figuratively, not literally

What I meant was that if you are a resident of California you may not use a Florida Driver's License, but you must obtain and use a California Drivers License. If you are a Florida resident you may legally drive in California using your Florida Drivers License.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:16 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crom View Post
If you have a permit from any other state (non-resident; Fl, Utah, whatever) you're good to go and you're covered in paragraph #1.
This is why I like 2900 better than 822.

People will be opposed to it because they believe it infringes on "state's rights", but the 2A is a Federal Bill of Rights issue, and because we have 14A DP Incorporation, it becomes that much more of a Federal issue, in that, states are required to protect the 2A as it is a fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by states, instead of trashed (like CA did with this legislative session).

If 2900 passes, the State of IL will be having another one of those "be careful what you wish for" moments...

The only problem it would create is "Carry License shopping", and that's something that would need to be addressed simply by requiring a resident who lives in a may issue state who is denied a license to give them the option of going for a bordering state.

The reason would be that for states which have the cheapest license, that state would be flooded with OOS applications, while states like Florida or Nevada, or the state with the highest cost for a LTC would get virtually no business from OOS residents.

Unless of course, those states that have high fees decide it might not be such a bad thing to lower the cost of getting a LTC.

The flip side of that issue is that it might cause other states who might be located next to may issue states that have a high population to jack up their license fees.

Either way, it would be a "good problem" to have.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:28 PM
Ima2Avoter's Avatar
Ima2Avoter Ima2Avoter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Free state of MONTANA!!!
Posts: 218
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Just got off the phone with Congressman Darrel Issa. It was put forth by his staff (as his position) that HR822 is a great bill and he supports it and unless evidence comes forward, he will vote for it.

Last edited by Ima2Avoter; 10-14-2011 at 3:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:33 PM
Ima2Avoter's Avatar
Ima2Avoter Ima2Avoter is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Free state of MONTANA!!!
Posts: 218
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wheels View Post
'

It would be great if the Constitutional carry states would just add a restriction - (like glasses) for LTC on their drivers licenses/ID cards.

Example: (on the license)
Restriction - not eligible for use as a LTC

Would also give LEO a heads up that the holder may deserve further attention (ACLU would hate this aspect).
I don't agree, we are talking about our Constitutional right. If we're against HR822 because it would ultimately create a database of concealed carry people, then your suggestion would also do the same. Most states have reciprocity laws that allow other states to access their DMV (not to mention allow other state's tickets to post on home state records), that would be a violation of privacy and begin the database we are all working so hard to avoid. In my opinion, this is flawed from so many angles.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:37 PM
Crom's Avatar
Crom Crom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,632
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
This is why I like 2900 better than 822.
I like it better too. Instant carry for us in Cali who can't get permits and have out of state permits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
People will be opposed to it because they believe it infringes on "state's rights", but the 2A is a Federal Bill of Rights issue, and because we have 14A DP Incorporation, it becomes that much more of a Federal issue, in that, states are required to protect the 2A as it is a fundamental right that is supposed to be protected by states, instead of trashed (like CA did with this legislative session).
Sure. 10A and all that. But any legal means possible. Let 'em use the commerce clause. My guns were built out of state.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
The only problem it would create is "Carry License shopping", and that's something that would need to be addressed simply by requiring a resident who lives in a may issue state who is denied a license to give them the option of going for a bordering state.

The reason would be that for states which have the cheapest license, that state would be flooded with OOS applications, while states like Florida or Nevada, or the state with the highest cost for a LTC would get virtually no business from OOS residents.

Unless of course, those states that have high fees decide it might not be such a bad thing to lower the cost of getting a LTC.

The flip side of that issue is that it might cause other states who might be located next to may issue states that have a high population to jack up their license fees.

Either way, it would be a "good problem" to have.

Erik.
License shopping is not a problem. It's done right now by most gun owners who travel.

But I do agree it may pose unique challenges for some states that have a large influx of applicants. They can hire more people to process applications and give some one a job., etc.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:46 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

The problem is that this will not pass the Senate unless the GOP takes control of it in 2012 & it gets the proper, veto over-riding backing necessary. I cannot see Obama signing this.

However, if it does pass, I cannot wait to see the impact on election campaign's for certain, never issues, Sheriffs through out the state.


How much would you pay to De Leon's face the moment this became law?
__________________
‘‘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
  #26  
Old 10-14-2011, 3:48 PM
wheels's Avatar
wheels wheels is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,292
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ima2Avoter View Post
I don't agree, we are talking about our Constitutional right. If we're against HR822 because it would ultimately create a database of concealed carry people, then your suggestion would also do the same. Most states have reciprocity laws that allow other states to access their DMV (not to mention allow other state's tickets to post on home state records), that would be a violation of privacy and begin the database we are all working so hard to avoid. In my opinion, this is flawed from so many angles.
I figure you missed my intention or I wasn't clear.

Since most have a license or ID issued from a state, my point is that by default if you have a license or ID from you state it is also a LTC unless you are prohibited by some action or behavior on your part. This would make all law abiding and mentally competent residents LTC holders by default, regardless of their intention or desire to carry. You loose the right, your license then get revoked and reissued reflecting your restriction on carry.

I'm suggesting that all law abiding residents are automatically LTC holders - as Constitutional carry implies.

matter of fact in the interest of efficiency you could issue a state ID, and restrict driving, LTC, etc....instead of having ID's and licenses as separate documents.
__________________
Quote:
The society that separates its scholars from its warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools. Thucydides
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-14-2011, 4:20 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quser.619 View Post
The problem is that this will not pass the Senate unless the GOP takes control of it in 2012 & it gets the proper, veto over-riding backing necessary. I cannot see Obama signing this.

However, if it does pass, I cannot wait to see the impact on election campaign's for certain, never issues, Sheriffs through out the state.


How much would you pay to De Leon's face the moment this became law?
Not necessarily... Remember the Thune Amendment when it failed in the Senate by something like 2 votes? That was the last session, and that one had just a few more teeth than 822.

Now we have more (R)s who will vote in favor of this bill, as well as a few extra pro2A (D)s who will likely vote for 2900.

I don't believe it will be 100% partisan, which is why I think it will pass. The biggest hurtle would be getting it attached to an absolutely guaranteed must sign bill because we know that Obama might veto anything else and tell them to go back and do it again without a 2900 in it. This is why we need to start convincing more (D)s and (R)s to stop dividing ideas by party affiliation.

The only (D)s who (quite literally) will kick & scream bloody murder are Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Schumer. We'll get to see them and the BC & LCAV in their truest of colors and just how racist they really are... Just wait & see...

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-14-2011, 8:12 PM
Don'tBlink's Avatar
Don'tBlink Don'tBlink is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 34
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post

The only (D)s who (quite literally) will kick & scream bloody murder are Feinstein, Boxer, McCarthy, Schumer.

Erik.
Can't wait. It would not just make my day, it would make the rest of my life .

Ps. Thanks to all who clarified the wording of the bill. I read it a couple of times and got it wrong. With your help, it makes total sense now .

Last edited by Don'tBlink; 10-14-2011 at 8:18 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:07 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:36 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

For all of the reasons you mention, I'm rather surprised NRA isn't pushing 2900...

-Brandon

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:39 PM
Window_Seat's Avatar
Window_Seat Window_Seat is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Klamath Falls, Oregon
Posts: 3,525
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
There are two issues with 2900.

It has less of a chance of passing than 802.

2900 would moot all of the carry cases, and we would all run the risk of having a home bound 2A.

The second issue should send chills down your spine.

-Gene
But would it moot the 1988 portions of these cases?

As far as the spiny chills... Nevermind, I'll figure it out (in two weeks)...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
For all of the reasons you mention, I'm rather surprised NRA isn't pushing 2900...

-Brandon
This might be because GOA is pushing 2900.

Erik.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 10-16-2011, 10:47 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Window_Seat View Post
This might be because GOA is pushing 2900.

Erik.
I think you missed the joke.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 10-17-2011, 2:08 AM
cvnhank cvnhank is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 27
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hoffmang,
"The second issue should send chills down your spine."
Is that a good chill or bad chill? Hank
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 10-17-2011, 2:41 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,197
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If GOA supports something while the NRA & CGF supports a different bill, I'm supporting the NRA & CGF bill without question. GOA is a money-making scam posing as a gun rights group.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 10-17-2011, 3:38 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,493
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cvnhank View Post
Hoffmang,
"The second issue should send chills down your spine."
Is that a good chill or bad chill? Hank
A very, very bad chill.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:07 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.