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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:06 PM
BennyAdeline's Avatar
BennyAdeline BennyAdeline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Pasadena
Posts: 1,427
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

I guess I’m thick and can’t figure out the result of the vote and what the next steps are. Help?
__________________
“You cannot save the planet. You may be able to save yourself and your family.”

-Clint Smith
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:26 PM
butchy_boy's Avatar
butchy_boy butchy_boy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 104
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Seriously if you are in CA, MA, NY, NJ, HI, MD etc and can't get a CCW due to no fault of your own, you should be supporting this as you will actually be able to practice you right if it passes without changing the language.
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:33 PM
Frisco3Gun's Avatar
Frisco3Gun Frisco3Gun is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 710
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
It is during representative Slaughter's opening remarks. Somewhere around the 4-5 minute mark.
32:52 according to the text search
__________________
God may have made men, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

Send me pics of your: Colt Detective Special, AMT Hardballer, pre-64 Winchester Model 70. I'm looking for them.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:40 PM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The search results on Google are so slanted it's not funny. Fear mongering like I've never seen, and the one article that shows up from a pro rights source talks about voting against hr38 due to the poison pill.

"Thank you for using google's social engineering service..."
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:47 PM
Rez805 Rez805 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 462
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
The search results on Google are so slanted it's not funny. Fear mongering like I've never seen, and the one article that shows up from a pro rights source talks about voting against hr38 due to the poison pill.

"Thank you for using google's social engineering service..."
Seriously.

Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:52 PM
kuug's Avatar
kuug kuug is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 773
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Does anyone have the result of the amendment votes? I cant look it up right now and someone is telling me they voted to keep the bills separate.
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 12-05-2017, 2:58 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
"The issue is whether that other state can regulate what handguns and magazines are carried in their own state."
Should this become law, the answer is clear due to federal preemption.

"This is the crux of the "violation of states' rights" vs "we're just requiring reciprocity, like a driver's license" debate."
This is a separate point, and one I've made clear several times would be a valid point to be made against this bill should it be made law regarding 10th amendment states rights. This would require a federal determination on Article 4 protections vs 10th Amendment states rights.

In my opinion, due to the wording of the 10th amendment, Article 4 Section 2 supersedes it and thus invalidates any claim of states rights on this matter. But I guess we'll need the courts to give an opinion.

But until such a time the fact of the matter is: this bill, should it become law, DOES explicitly allow for protections to those carrying standard capacity magazines across state lines and into a state with magazine capacity laws. It does not indicate that you must conform to the magazine restrictions of the state you are in as you claimed before.

"If you want to be a test case, go for it!"
Don't be disingenuous. Your earlier statement was inaccurate.
This issue would never come down to an individual prosecution. Each state with magazine capacity laws that want to contest on this issue is going to file a federal lawsuit if, an as soon as, this bill passes.
As I wrote previously and applies here as well:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Califpatriot View Post
Don't really want to get into a long argument about a bill that hasn't been passed by either house, but I disagree. I think the canons of statutory interpretation would side with my reading. However, the Senate bill (Cornyn's) as currently written would definitely not help Californians carry in California. Pressure needs to be put on the senate to change the text
In a battle of experts, I know who I'm placing my bets on: the folks who "live and breathe" rules of construction and statutory interpretation day in and day out for a living....

Quote:
Rep. Hudson's office reiterated the claim that the bill would apply equally to those with resident permits, those with nonresident permits, and those who live in states that don't require a permit to carry a firearm. Tatum Gibson, a Hudson spokesperson, said the congressman's comments to the Washington Free Beacon earlier this year were "still accurate." In January, Hudson responded to questions about nonresident permits by saying he intended for the bill to include them.

"My legislative intent is to ensure a nonresident carry permit is recognized, and I've confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff," Hudson told the Free Beacon at the time.
(emphasis added) From: http://freebeacon.com/issues/nationa...es-mark-house/

JMO

...
I'll put my money on Hudson's "legislative intent" as "confirmed" by legislative counsel" and "Judiciary Committee staff."

If you think you know better than they, go for it!!!

Last edited by Paladin; 12-05-2017 at 3:01 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 12-05-2017, 3:49 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate (Away) your second amendment rights.
Wouldn't it be nice if politicians didn't lie in order to garner support of their views?


Fix NICS does not grant any agency the power to adjudicate anything!

It mandates that agencies properly report persons as prohibited, that have already been "adjudicated".
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 12-05-2017, 3:53 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kuug View Post
Does anyone have the result of the amendment votes? I cant look it up right now and someone is telling me they voted to keep the bills separate.
No new amendment's were added. It stays linked with HR4477. I really think they did this to pass HR38. The dems would have thrown in every thing to defeat it. They are pissed it's linked...

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 12-05-2017, 3:57 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
As I wrote previously and applies here as well:

I'll put my money on Hudson's "legislative intent" as "confirmed" by legislative counsel" and "Judiciary Committee staff."

If you think you know better than they, go for it!!!
You are conflating non-resident permit recognition with the protections of magazines in this bill in attempt to erroneously support your earlier assertion and avoid admitting the error of your earlier assertion. Legislative intent regarding this bills interaction with magazine capacity limit laws is not "confirmed" regarding this bill with the Judiciary Committee. In fact it was not even brought up.

The only thing in support of your claim is a Fox News soundbite that is directly contrary to the clear wording in the bill regarding the protections for magazines specifically being classified as "handguns", and wording that explicitly prevents a state or local law enforcement organization from making an arrest or detaining someone who is carrying a ""handgun"" for "ANY" law pertaining to the possession, carrying, or transportation of a firearm.

Proving "legislative intent" that overwrites the clear language of the bill based on a 10 second news soundbite is dubious at best.
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 12-05-2017, 4:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 1,847
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You are conflating non-resident permit recognition with the protections of magazines in this bill in attempt to erroneously support your earlier assertion and avoid admitting the error of your earlier assertion. Legislative intent regarding this bills interaction with magazine capacity limit laws is not "confirmed" regarding this bill with the Judiciary Committee. In fact it was not even brought up.

The only thing in support of your claim is a Fox News soundbite that is directly contrary to the clear wording in the bill regarding the protections for magazines specifically being classified as "handguns", and wording that explicitly prevents a state or local law enforcement organization from making an arrest or detaining someone who is carrying a ""handgun"" for "ANY" law pertaining to the possession, carrying, or transportation of a firearm.

Proving "legislative intent" that overwrites the clear language of the bill based on a 10 second news soundbite is dubious at best.
To add: courts do not consider legislative intent unless necessary to resolve an ambiguity on the face of a statute. The first and primary rule of construction is its "plain meaning."
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 12-05-2017, 5:24 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,931
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Aren't the Democrats the one constantly screaming we need to compromise. I guess its there turn to do a little compromising.
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 12-05-2017, 5:45 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You are conflating non-resident permit recognition with the protections of magazines in this bill in attempt to erroneously support your earlier assertion and avoid admitting the error of your earlier assertion.
Wrong. I am saying the same thing about both CGN posters: they may not know as much as they think they know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
Legislative intent regarding this bills interaction with magazine capacity limit laws is not "confirmed" regarding this bill with the Judiciary Committee. In fact it was not even brought up.
You're assuming the members of the committee never consult each other outside of public hearings. If you had even bothered to click to the original article, you would have seen it was published on Nov 28th, 2 days before the bill was discussed and voted on in committee. So, when Hudson claimed he had "confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff" he was talking about discussions he had which you have no knowledge of.

Since you thought all discussion was what was discussed in committee, that makes me feel more confident you know less than you think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
The only thing in support of your claim is a Fox News soundbite that is directly contrary to the clear wording in the bill regarding the protections for magazines specifically being classified as "handguns", and wording that explicitly prevents a state or local law enforcement organization from making an arrest or detaining someone who is carrying a ""handgun"" for "ANY" law pertaining to the possession, carrying, or transportation of a firearm.

Proving "legislative intent" that overwrites the clear language of the bill based on a 10 second news soundbite is dubious at best.
I'm just saying I trust those on the other side of both issues (e.g., Hudson, the author of the legislation) than either CGN poster.

But I fully support your right to be a test case if the bill doesn't get changed on that issue and it gets signed into law. Then, if you truly believe what you say, Go for it!!!
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 12-05-2017, 6:06 PM
DirtyLaundry DirtyLaundry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: La Jolla
Posts: 1,469
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Wrong. I am saying the same thing about both CGN posters: they may not know as much as they think they know.
You are implying there is some sort of top secret inside information necessary to interpret the bill... instead of just reading the text of the bill. You are conducting mental gymnastics and being argumentative to avoid admitting that you spouted FUD earlier with your boisterous claim earlier that people are restricted to a given states magazine capacity laws when no such provision exists in the bill. In fact, the exact opposite wording is present.


Quote:
You're assuming the members of the committee never consult each other outside of public hearings.
irrelevant. the post and conversation you linked to was about non-resident application of this bill. This is a completely different subject to the magazine capacity aspect you spread FUD about earlier in this thread.

Quote:
Since you thought all discussion was what was discussed in committee, that makes me feel more confident you know less than you think.
You cited the judicial committee as justification for you flatly incorrect assertion. I correctly pointed out that no such discussion ever even occurred in committee.

Quote:
I'm just saying I trust those on the other side of both issues (e.g., Hudson, the author of the legislation) than either CGN poster.
What the author claims the bill says, or what I claim the bill says is irrelevant. READ what the bill says. The text of the bill is whats important. Not your feelings about the validity of who or what someone said about something.

If you have some other interpretation of the bill that disagrees with mine, outline it. Otherwise stop spouting nonsense.

Quote:
But I fully support your right to be a test case if the bill doesn't get changed on that issue and it gets signed into law. Then, if you truly believe what you say, Go for it!!!
You keep saying this in attempt to back out of the argument without taking responsibility for your assertions you put forth so confidently.

Either provide and explain your alternate interpretation of this bill that backs your earlier assertion so it can be judged on its merits, or admit that you were wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 12-05-2017, 7:15 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 817
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You are implying there is some sort of top secret inside information necessary to interpret the bill... instead of just reading the text of the bill. You are conducting mental gymnastics and being argumentative to avoid admitting that you spouted FUD earlier with your boisterous claim earlier that people are restricted to a given states magazine capacity laws when no such provision exists in the bill. In fact, the exact opposite wording is present.



irrelevant. the post and conversation you linked to was about non-resident application of this bill. This is a completely different subject to the magazine capacity aspect you spread FUD about earlier in this thread.


You cited the judicial committee as justification for you flatly incorrect assertion. I correctly pointed out that no such discussion ever even occurred in committee.


What the author claims the bill says, or what I claim the bill says is irrelevant. READ what the bill says. The text of the bill is whats important. Not your feelings about the validity of who or what someone said about something.

If you have some other interpretation of the bill that disagrees with mine, outline it. Otherwise stop spouting nonsense.


You keep saying this in attempt to back out of the argument without taking responsibility for your assertions you put forth so confidently.

Either provide and explain your alternate interpretation of this bill that backs your earlier assertion so it can be judged on its merits, or admit that you were wrong.
The House Judiciary Committee considered an amendment that would have excluded “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” from the protections of H.R. 38. The Committee voted down that amendment, 7-17.

Here’s how the committee report described it:
Quote:
High Capacity Ammunition Magazines. Congressman David Cicilline (D-RI) offered an amendment to prohibit the bill from allowing the carrying of high capacity magazines for use with handguns across state lines. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 7-17.
Isn’t that an indication of legislative intent—and moreover, a clearer one than one congressman’s comments in the media?

And, of course, it’s quite right that when the plain language of the bill is clear, no consideration is given to intent.

Last edited by CalAlumnus; 12-05-2017 at 7:20 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 12-05-2017, 7:16 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
I agree. Disregarding the actual wording of the bill. Requiring people to know and to juggle magazine capacity laws and juggle actual magazines when crossing state lines effectively defeats the intended purpose of the bill.
I also agree, when it comes to self defense rights the states need to be completely out of the equation.
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 12-05-2017, 8:24 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
... You are conducting mental gymnastics and being argumentative to avoid admitting that you spouted FUD earlier with your boisterous claim earlier that people are restricted to a given states magazine capacity laws when no such provision exists in the bill. In fact, the exact opposite wording is present.
I just said quite plainly what the author of the bill said quite plainly: that state regulations on carrying for residents will also apply to non-residents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
irrelevant. the post and conversation you linked to was about non-resident application of this bill. This is a completely different subject to the magazine capacity aspect you spread FUD about earlier in this thread.
All I did was state what the author of the bill himself says in that embedded interview: state magazine limits will still apply to all carrying under this bill. If you think you know better than Rep. Hudson, go argue with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You cited the judicial committee as justification for you flatly incorrect assertion. I correctly pointed out that no such discussion ever even occurred in committee.
I'll repeat myself since it didn't sink in the first time:
Quote:
You're assuming the members of the committee never consult each other outside of public hearings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
What the author claims the bill says, or what I claim the bill says is irrelevant. READ what the bill says. The text of the bill is whats important. Not your feelings about the validity of who or what someone said about something.

If you have some other interpretation of the bill that disagrees with mine, outline it. Otherwise stop spouting nonsense.
Since my position is the Congressman's, I'll let you tell him that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DirtyLaundry View Post
You keep saying this in attempt to back out of the argument without taking responsibility for your assertions you put forth so confidently.

Either provide and explain your alternate interpretation of this bill that backs your earlier assertion so it can be judged on its merits, or admit that you were wrong.
I wasn't making any arguments, I was just stating who's opinion I believe and in both case, it's not the anonymous CGN poster's.

I trust the Congressman who said in a press interview -- here I'm assuming he's not lying -- he consulted with both legislative counsel and the Judiciary Committee about his legislative intent and I do not assume he only discussed non-resident permits with them. I'll let you argue with him if you disagree with what he said.

Unless you plan on sharing your insights with Rep. Hudson or Congress, you're just shouting into the wind.

I was just sharing with CGNers the Congressman's statements about issues they raised.

Last edited by Paladin; 12-05-2017 at 8:26 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 12-05-2017, 9:10 PM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sfpcservice View Post
The search results on Google are so slanted it's not funny. Fear mongering like I've never seen, and the one article that shows up from a pro rights source talks about voting against hr38 due to the poison pill.

"Thank you for using google's social engineering service..."
Not really. I know it's hard for us to believe (myself included) what you are seeing is what people are visiting on a regular basis. Remember, Fox News for example is the titan powerhouse main stream media of Cable news (this is why people on the right blaming the main stream media is hilarious). Pulling down #1 ratings. Now, change the medium to the internet, and Fox News is now where near other juggernauts. Google/Bing/Yahoo etc obviously measure the internet relativity and thus the more conservative stories get less of a ranking because people simply aren't reading them as much. This is just a fact.

The gun articles are going to be skewed to the left because that is what people are reading. Don't know what else to tell you.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 12-06-2017, 4:52 AM
tomrkba's Avatar
tomrkba tomrkba is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Dun effed up and moved to SF
Posts: 1,511
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
Why do people think that a license to carry is the expression of a right?

Only 11 or 12 states have the actual right.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 12-06-2017, 7:03 AM
beanz2's Avatar
beanz2 beanz2 is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11,843
iTrader: 41 / 100%
Default

If you support HR38 and want to write your US Representative, the NRA-ILA has a convenient e-mail form to fill out:

https://act.nraila.org/composeletters.aspx?AlertID=1824
__________________

The wife will be pissed, but Jesus always forgives.
Reply With Quote
  #101  
Old 12-06-2017, 8:33 AM
ceedubG's Avatar
ceedubG ceedubG is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 314
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Debate on the floor is starting now:


http://houselive.gov/MediaPlayer.php...3&event_id=301
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:21 AM
solidfreshdope solidfreshdope is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 808
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The Democrats already made it clear they want to be the only ones with guns.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Welcome to the United Snakes.
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:21 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba View Post
Why do people think that a license to carry is the expression of a right?

Only 11 or 12 states have the actual right.
There are many rights that require license, registration, paperwork or all of the above. A rally protected by free speech will almost always require a permit from the government.

What makes the difference is the rules for issuing such permits.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:31 AM
sfpcservice's Avatar
sfpcservice sfpcservice is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Suisun City
Posts: 1,877
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceedubG View Post
Debate on the floor is starting now:


http://houselive.gov/MediaPlayer.php...3&event_id=301
I heard a bunch of little girls. Oh, there was a Woman who spoke in support of rights
__________________
http://theresedoksheim.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/gridlock.jpg


John 14:6
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:31 AM
Mute's Avatar
Mute Mute is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Diamond Bar
Posts: 8,091
iTrader: 40 / 100%
Default

Latest on this:

https://rules.house.gov/bill/115/hr-38

Looks like they're trying to strip the NICS portion.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member
NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle & Refuse To Be A Victim Instructor

American Marksman Training Group
Visit our American Marksman Facebook Page
Diamond Bar CCW Facebook Page


NRA Memberships at Discounted fee
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 12-06-2017, 9:34 AM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: America
Posts: 616
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

We don't need their permission, the Founding Fathers insured we don't. It's time to reprimanded politicians for violating our rights. I'm ready to work 12 hour shifts on the gallows to rid us of Leftist anti-Americans once and for all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 12-06-2017, 11:41 AM
rootuser rootuser is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,018
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
There are many rights that require license, registration, paperwork or all of the above. A rally protected by free speech will almost always require a permit from the government.

What makes the difference is the rules for issuing such permits.
Yes and the arbitrary and capricious nature in which May-issue states issue their permits. With enough money you can buy one in NY and CA at least
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:08 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
code Monkey
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: A burned-out Best Buy
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Jones-Sawyer worded it far too narrowly... "The legislature sometimes ignores whether or not it's constitutional... we go ahead and make laws because we're california... we do it anyways"

Looks like that statement needs to be expanded to include numerous members of congress
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:29 PM
CCWFacts CCWFacts is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,150
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phalanx20mm View Post
We don't need their permission, the Founding Fathers insured we don't. It's time to reprimanded politicians for violating our rights. I'm ready to work 12 hour shifts on the gallows to rid us of Leftist anti-Americans once and for all.
Aren't we all.

But nowadays we don't use gallows for that.

__________________
"Weakness is provocative."
Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024

Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:45 PM
coryhenry's Avatar
coryhenry coryhenry is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,325
iTrader: 28 / 100%
Default

It passed
__________________
Cory

"Every man dies, not every man really lives!"

Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 12-06-2017, 12:58 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,506
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Thanks to work I missed the last part, did the amendment to restrict it to resident permits only get approved?
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:05 PM
DevilDawgJJ's Avatar
DevilDawgJJ DevilDawgJJ is offline
Pitbull Apologist
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,719
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coryhenry View Post
It passed
So now what?

This trash is soooo confusing for this Marine!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I pity your kids, because they are doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
Can I bring my Donkey? He loves Chunky Monkey.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:13 PM
MissiontoMars MissiontoMars is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,547
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kestryll View Post
Thanks to work I missed the last part, did the amendment to restrict it to resident permits only get approved?
Double check me, Kestryll, but No, i dont think so. I didnt hear that specifically, but all amendments i listened to were voted against sucessfully.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:14 PM
MissiontoMars MissiontoMars is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,547
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevilDawgJJ View Post
So now what?

This trash is soooo confusing for this Marine!
We're gonna be looking for 60 votes in the senate, devil dog. Probably fairly soon...
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:32 PM
johncmng johncmng is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

What would happen if a Nevadian with a 15 round magazine crosses into Komifornia if this bill passes? Is it a felony?
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:34 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Local laws apply. Cannot carry standard capacity magazines and cannot carry where it's generally prohibited.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 12-06-2017, 1:36 PM
DevilDawgJJ's Avatar
DevilDawgJJ DevilDawgJJ is offline
Pitbull Apologist
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 1,719
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissiontoMars View Post
We're gonna be looking for 60 votes in the senate, devil dog. Probably fairly soon...
Roger that!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
I pity your kids, because they are doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLIGHT762 View Post
Can I bring my Donkey? He loves Chunky Monkey.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 12-06-2017, 2:14 PM
johncmng johncmng is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 336
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
Local laws apply. Cannot carry standard capacity magazines and cannot carry where it's generally prohibited.
I can see a lot of out-of-state people getting into trouble with this.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 12-06-2017, 2:16 PM
stag6.8 stag6.8 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,307
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Hopefully the dems in the senate wont try to add a residency ammendent like they tried to do in the house and failed to do so...and all the republicans will be on board with this...and since its no longer a stand alone bill (NICS), some dems will vote for it too...and most of all PASS!!!
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 12-06-2017, 2:55 PM
HarryS HarryS is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 277
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The proggies in Lost Angles County are going to stay inside their houses with the blinds drawn for days if this gets through the Senate. The local antifa warriors may rethink their tactics. And CA will lose money from people not applying for a CA permit, perhaps.

Sounds fine to me. A three-fer, in fact.
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 4:11 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