Republicans to Seek Concealed-Weapon Amendment to Gun Measure

[The Shadow]

This is how California will get "Shall Issue". Nothing that's being done so far is working.

“I could see something like this passing with broad bipartisan support,” Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters today. “I’ll be interested to hear what the objections are to it.”

“I have a great deal of concern about concealed carry,” New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. “New York City is not Wyoming,” he said. “You talk to our police in New York state, they think it really interferes with police work.”

EDIT: Here's the link. Concealed Carry

[Stewdabaker23]

Schumer is one dumbass person. I don't trust anything that he says.

[VAReact]

This is how California will get "Shall Issue". Nothing that's being done so far is working.

Don't think it will work for CA residents holding out of state permits from other states...

[The Shadow]

Don't think it will work for CA residents holding out of state permits from other states...

That's true. But California will be unable to stop Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona residents from carrying concealed in California. Because of this, it will be a moot point to stop "Shall Issue" legislation from becoming law.

[rodeoflyer]

That's true. But California will be unable to stop Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona residents from carrying concealed in California. Because of this, it will be a moot point to stop "Shall Issue" legislation from becoming law.

When has being a "moot point" ever stopped dumb laws from passing and being enforced in California?

Let's be realistic - Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona residents visiting California represent only a small percentage of people here.

[Norsemen308]

That's true. But California will be unable to stop Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona residents from carrying concealed in California. Because of this, it will be a moot point to stop "Shall Issue" legislation from becoming law.

no offense, but thats a very ignorant position. CA will never allow shall issue here at all, look at the make up of the house and senate, they have the numbers, they dont want the sheep armed, its NOT going to happen. If it does pass, without a doubt any non-resident who packs in this state will be handcuffed and sent to jail. CA does not care what the constitution says or the federal government, we are stuck in a nanny state that picks and chooses what it wants to enforce or not.

our only hope is with the SC, and it doesnt look like its gonna happen anytime soon.

[The Shadow]

When has being a "moot point" ever stopped dumb laws from passing and being enforced in California?

Let's be realistic - Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona residents visiting California represent only a small percentage of people here.

And while that is probably true, the key fact is that they are out of state, and bringing their firearms here. So how does a politician counter the obvious fact that they don't trust their own residents with firearms in public while out of staters come here armed ?

[The Shadow]

no offense, but thats a very ignorant position. CA will never allow shall issue here at all, look at the make up of the house and senate, they have the numbers, they dont want the sheep armed, its NOT going to happen. If it does pass, without a doubt any non-resident who packs in this state will be handcuffed and sent to jail. CA does not care what the constitution says or the federal government, we are stuck in a nanny state that picks and chooses what it wants to enforce or not.

our only hope is with the SC, and it doesnt look like its gonna happen anytime soon.

Well that will be an interesting FEDERAL law suit, and probably very expensive for cities and counties that choose to play that game. So how many law suits can the state, counties, and cities pay out for violations like that ?

[sholling]

And while that is probably true, the key fact is that they are out of state, and bringing their firearms here. So how does a politician counter the obvious fact that they don't trust their own residents with firearms in public while out of staters come here armed ?

The politicians have the media on their side and no one will ever hear about the fact that out of staters will be able to carry. But that's beside the point, our commissars know that the vast majority of Californians have zero interest in carrying a gun so they'll keep it illegal here and thumb their noses at us while thinking up new restrictions every year.

[The Shadow]

The politicians have the media on their side and no one will ever hear about the fact that out of staters will be able to carry. But that's beside the point, our commissars know that the vast majority of Californians have zero interest in carrying a gun so they'll keep it illegal here and thumb their noses at us while thinking up new restrictions every year.

And then there are those of us who will make sure that everyone we talk to knows about it. It won't stay quiet for long.

[strlen]

It's well intentioned, but unless the amendment sets out specific civil and criminal penalties for states, counties, sheriffs, etc... that refuse to honour out-of-state licenses, this would be treated much like FOPA transportation provision is treated by New York: you will still be arrested and jailed overnight, merely you will not be actually be convicted of any crime.

Given the FOPA-strengthening this bill is supposed contains did not fix that core problem with FOPA transportation provisions (but, hey, at least I can stop at Katz Deli before getting arrested while driving to New Hampshire!), I have no reason to suspect such provisions will exist in a "carry-reciprocity amendment". Should this be different (i.e., should carry-reciprocity-with-teeth amendment pass and withstand "test-cases" in California), I will promise to gladly carry my full-size 1911 in the waistband for an entire day (even when sitting) as penance for this bit of pessimism.

I can see a desire to pass a symbolic (if toothless) provision to "punish" the antis for their behavior in California. However, "justice" here will be poetic: if the gun-control lobby did not spook pro-rights organizations with what they've done/are about to do in California, gun-rights organizations would actually *help* craft a very narrow and specific ban on private-party sales at gunshows (something they've seen no problem with before and what most people think when they think of "closing the gunshow loophole") and help remove the many troubling privacy issues with the current amendment/package. However, they understand that passage of any new controls will be seen as a rhetorical victory ("a step in the right direction") towards incrementally adopting California's laws on a national basis, which themselves aren't yet quite what the antis want in the end.

Reality check: for the most part, in respect to rifles, California laws are actually more strict than laws in Canada and New Zealand. Should SB 374 become law, the "for the most part" goes away as too: right now detachable magazines are limited to 5 rounds in Canada and 7 in New Zealand, with SB 374 they will be limited to 0 rounds in California. This leads to an inevitable conclusion, that their idea of "common sense" is a situation like Australia or UK (complete bans on semi-automatics, severe crippling of all other repeating firearms, etc...). There's a problem with that: AU and UK never had widespread gun ownership or a strong constitutional right to bear arms (only a progressively weakened common-law based one from the English Bill of Rights). Not only would that scenario be unconstitutional in the United States, for the foreseeable future it will continue to fail in the court of public opinion ( http://www.nationaljournal.com/polit...isn-t-20130408 ) and in the legislature.

[skinnytrees]

“I have a great deal of concern about concealed carry,” New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said in an interview yesterday. “New York City is not Wyoming,” he said. “You talk to our police in New York state, they think it really interferes with police work.”

Yet this same piece of **** wants to tell Wyoming what type of guns they need, what size magazines they need, and any other bs gun law they need.

New York politicians are a disgrace

[taperxz]

How would CA prevent out of staters from carrying concealed in CA?

EASY!!! You pass SB374 which makes the firearms, AW's and illegal to possess in this state.


BTW, this would be a fun one to see in court. CA would get hammered for banning all the guns.

[Big Ben]

The article loses significant credibility with this statement:

"About half of the 50 states have some type of conceal-carry law."

In truth, all but 1 state has some type of conceal-carry law (and given Moore v. Madigan, Illinois will have to rectify their non-issuance soon), and better than 80% of states have either "shall issue" or "constitutional carry" laws.

[lasbrg]

Yet [he] wants to tell Wyoming what type of guns they need, what size magazines they need, and any other bs gun law they need.

Excellent point. Anyway, w.r.t. to the OP, S. 649 is completely dead. Both sides will posture for their bases and the thing will sink like a stone when it comes up for a vote today or tomorrow. No new restrictions, no reciprocity, no nothing.