View Full Version : Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act vote on Wednesday!
This is huge! While it's only going to the floor of the House this week, and they anticipate the Senate to be a major hurdle (what with Chuck "anti-Freedom" Schumer leading the charge against it), we could be one step closer to National CCW Reciprocity this week.
It would be nice to see this actually pass, and my bet is that Trump would sign it into law without question.
Gun-rights supporters are eyeing a big win this week as a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines heads to the House floor -- though it faces long odds in the Senate amid deep-pocketed opposition from gun-control advocates.
“This is just simple, common-sense legislation that says if you’re a law-abiding citizen … we’re not going to turn you into a criminal just for crossing an invisible state line,” bill sponsor Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C., told “Fox News @ Night.”
Hudson says the bill simply attempts to clarify the patchwork of state laws that confuse citizens who can unwittingly get arrested when traveling from state to state.
“All I’m saying is, when I cross the state line, I don’t want to automatically become a criminal,” he said.
The three-term congressman also is quick to point out the measure does not attempt to usurp state and local authority with federal law, nor does it ease background checks on gun purchases.
The bill has 213 cosponsors, including three Democrats, and backing from 24 state attorneys general.
Full Story (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/major-concealed-carry-bill-picks-up-momentum-steams-toward-house-floor.html)
I'm shocked that there are 3 democrats cosponsoring this bill... I'm not holding my breath, but I am hoping for the best![Beer]
Zundfolge
12-04-2017, 14:38
My guess is this passes the house and then languishes in Mitch's Limbo until the end of the session.
Or it'll have anti gun stuff hidden in it and it'll fail (I haven't read the text of the bill so I don't know)
My guess is this passes the house and then languishes in Mitch's Limbo until the end of the session.
Or it'll have anti gun stuff hidden in it and it'll fail (I haven't read the text of the bill so I don't know)
All the knuckleheads voting on it probably haven't read it either.
I just read the text of the bill, as introduced to the committee, and then the follow on bill HR 4477 the "Fix NICS Act". It doesn't have anything hidden in it, as what will be presented for vote. It strictly says that if you hold a CCW permit in State A, you can visit State B with reciprocity where not otherwise prohibited by federal law or where prohibited by private property laws. It also amends the LEOSA text, but it's very minor.
You can read it here: http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20171204/BILLS-115HR38-RCP115-45.pdf
Zundfolge
12-04-2017, 16:43
Section 206 is interesting in that it defines "bump stocks" the way we would and not the weaselly way Feinstien did (that would ban anything that "increases rate of fire" which could include a target trigger or action job).
I wish they'd have inserted language that allows for a CHL to bypass a BGC, but that would probably undermine its ability to pass.
There needs to be something there allowing you to carry everywhere whatever firearms and magazines that you are allowed to carry in your home state.
I firmly believe that states and local jurisdictions should be barred from restricting any right in the constitution. These rights should be absolute without restriction, regulation or qualifications.
No fees to exercise.
No licences to exercise.
No restriction on the medium or instrument used. With minor restriction when you harm the peace on someone else's property. Ie load speakers blasting music at all hours.
Imagine if you needed a background check to publish a book, or a license to conceal your pen and paper...
OtterbatHellcat
12-04-2017, 18:47
Carrying in any location or circumstance would be nice as well. Schools, Gov buildings in general, most hospitals....etc etc.
They say gun theft from vehicles is super high......how many times did you leave yours in your car because some location that is your destination, wouldn't allow you to carry? Personally it pisses me off.
CBGC and FBGC passed on my end, I have training, and I have experience. Why then, not let me carry my defense/protection weapon wherever I go at any time?
There needs to be something there allowing you to carry everywhere whatever firearms and magazines that you are allowed to carry in your home state.
I don't like that at all. If you live in a state with firearm and mag limits, people from out of state could outgun the residents.
hurley842002
12-04-2017, 22:23
I don't like that at all. If you live in a state with firearm and mag limits, people from out of state could outgun the residents.That's about the most retarded argument I've ever heard...
That's about the most retarded argument I've ever heard...
How do you figure? Use your words and explain what you find 'retarded' about what you read.
You're from New York so you get to carry your 7 round mags in your home state. Billy Bob from XYZ state comes to New York and he's packing just like in his home state. Massachusetts has limits to which firearms its citizens can own, but visitors can carry whatever is legal in their home state. What's right about that?
You're from a state that doesn't require a 'permit' to CCW (Constitutional Carry), so how does reciprocity work?
I think what this does is illustrate the stupidity of these limits in states with them, including ours, and the difficulties of managing different gun laws in different states. "Shall not be infringed" would make this a whole lot easier.
hurley842002
12-04-2017, 22:59
How do you figure? Use your words and explain what you find 'retarded' about what you read.
You're from New York so you get to carry your 7 round mags in your home state. Billy Bob from XYZ state comes to New York and he's packing just like in his home state. Massachusetts has limits to which firearms its citizens can own, but visitors can carry whatever is legal in their home state. What's right about that?
You're from a state that doesn't require a 'permit' to CCW (Constitutional Carry), so how does reciprocity work?
I think what this does is illustrate the stupidity of these limits in states with them, including ours, and the difficulties of managing different gun laws in different states. "Shall not be infringed" would make this a whole lot easier.Don't like the draconian laws of your worthless state, then move, it's quite simple. We have a 15 round mag limit, but I'd not be butt hurt (like you), if someone from a freedom loving state came to visit, and could carry 17 rounds.
You seem to be worried about being "outgunned", I don't really think anyone interested in "outgunning" you is worried about a silly mag capacity law.
There are my words...
Wow. Pretty amazing that you jumped right to the 'butt hurt' level. Did you assume that I was concerned that legal CCW carriers were coming from out of state for a gunfight? That would be retarded.
I'm not so concerned about myself, but am thinking on a national scale, particularly for states that have even more restrictive laws than our own. Think California, where most of the population can't carry legally, but visitors could carry whatever was legal in their home state. In the converse, CA residents in a state where legal CCW is common or Constitutional Carry, the laws of their home state say they can't CCW. I'd be pleased if there was national reciprocity, but I also think it'll be a mess to implement and enforce. Kinda' like legalizing weed at a state level while it's illegal at the federal level.
The H.R. 38 bill, one of the best pro gun bills introduced in our nations history is avout to get drug through the mud and have another insidious bill, the "Fix NICS" bill tacked onto it as it exits committee tomorrow (12/05/2017). Below is a link at the Gun Owners of America (GOA) website where you can contact your representative and voice your opinion on this matter. I would stronly urge you to NOT use the pre-filled out form letter that GOA has in the message box, to many of those and it will look like a Bot.
https://www.gunowners.org/alert12042017.htm
Here is the message I sent to my Rep. Congressman Ken Buck - R. District 4 CO.
"When I visit Washington State I have to make a tough decision. Do I put the lives I love around me at risk by choosing to obey the law and be unarmed? Or do I risk becoming a felon? By carrying in the state of Washington if a law enforcement officer arrests me upon suspecting me of carrying a weapon, (that would otherwise be legal for me to carry in 30 other States), I have now committed all manner of crimes. This is foolish and unconstitutional. My drivers license is recognised in all 50 states and 7 territories, my right to travel freely is not called into question. Why then should my Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit be viewed any differently?
I strongly urge you to support a stand alone H.R. 38, and vote no on any H.R. designed to "Fix NICS" the only fix that the NICS needs is to be abolished. You see, I have this strange belief that I, the father and husband of my small family should be responsible for the safety and security of my loved ones and anyone I may prudently choose to defend with any weapon at my disposal. I voluntarily gave the best 5 years of my life to defend this great nation in wartime, it was my honor and privilege to have served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps where I was called upon to protect America's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. I fought in bloody Sangin Afghanistan, I protected the largest Marine Corps base, I have a Department of State Security Clearance, I'm a credentialed firearms instructor, I have a current, valid Concealed Handgun Permit for the State of Colorado, I'm a taxpaying, working, voting American citizen. Who else is better qualified to protect me and mine than me? Will you stand up for my rights, and the Millions like me?"
Lets get National Reciprocity, and demolish the non functional NICS once and for all.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
hurley842002
12-04-2017, 23:19
Wow. Pretty amazing that you jumped right to the 'butt hurt' level. Did you assume that i was concerned that legal CCW carriers were coming from out of state for a gunfight? That would be retarded.
Call it what you will, but you asked for "my words", I'm actually not hurt at all. You are the one worried about being "outgunned", but why does it matter what capacity law abiding folks can carry, the folks looking (in your words) to "outgun" you, aren't going to be concerned with capacity restrictions.
Call it what you will, but you asked for "my words", I'm actually not hurt at all. You are the one worried about being "outgunned", but why does it matter what capacity law abiding folks can carry, the folks looking (in your words) to "outgun" you, aren't going to be concerned with capacity restrictions.
I believe you are referring to criminal carry. Any law, including reciprocity, does not apply to them, so I'm not sure why they're in this discussion. You seem to be projecting.
hurley842002
12-04-2017, 23:28
I believe you are referring to criminal carry. Any law, including reciprocity, does not apply to them, so I'm not sure why they're in this discussion. You seem to be projecting.So why are you concerned with law abiding "non criminal" carrier's outgunning you?
I'm not worried about me.
hurley842002
12-04-2017, 23:48
I'm not worried about me.Yet you were concerned enough to post about resident's being outgunned...
I don't like that at all. If you live in a state with firearm and mag limits, people from out of state could outgun the residents.
The thread and the bill is in regard to CCW. I've read the bill. It's not about carrying what's limited in your home state nor being limited by your home state when you're in another state. It doesn't mean that you won't be bothered by the locals. If you have a permit that includes photo ID, you can use that as your defense in the state you're in. That to me means that this is going to be a legal goat rope. Good luck defending yourself with a jury made up of people that allowed the draconian gun laws. It''s probably safer to travel in coservative counties.
The comment I had initially responded to said "carry whatever firearms and magazine that you are allowed to carry in your home state."
There needs to be something there allowing you to carry everywhere whatever firearms and magazines that you are allowed to carry in your home state.
I didn't read that as being limited to CCW. Apparently someone took my "outgunned" statement to mean an actual firefight, which wasn't my intent. I was using the literal definition of outgunned - "to surpass in firepower". I thought people understood the term. Please forgive me.
ETA: My primary CCW handguns are single stacks.
RblDiver
12-05-2017, 03:38
Your argument still doesn't make sense as written. The only reason to be concerned about being outgunned would be if someone is going to attack you, which becomes an illegal act. Meanwhile, criminals clearly aren't going to worry about limits regardless.
So you're "outgunned." It isn't a dick-measuring contest. You have a pistol and I have a rifle, unless we're shooting at each other it makes no difference.
Now if you were meaning that you didn't want to be outgunned in the sense that there shouldn't be these arbitrary limits by state and that shall not be abridged should mean just that, then I agree.
Now if you were meaning that you didn't want to be outgunned in the sense that there shouldn't be these arbitrary limits by state and that shall not be abridged should mean just that, then I agree.
This was my point. It's stupid to have these arbitrary differences where the 2A "shall not be infringed" has been stepped on and you would have citizens in one of these states playing by different rules than visitors to the state from somewhere else that doesn't have these limitations.
Based on what I understand from reading the bill, non-residents of a state aren't given some kind of exemption to state regs. If you are prosecuted in another state, you can use your CCW as a defense, but there's no guaranteed outcome. If you win your case under this defense, then you can be reimbursed for legal fees. I don't know about you, but states have a larger legal budget than I do, so trying to plead your case could be an ugly proposition. Who wants to volunteer to be the first test case?
I am not a lawyer, but have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express before. Does anyone have any information that your state's CCW laws provide some sort of exemption from the differing CCW laws in the state that your visiting based on this legislation?
It passed.
CNN: House passes bill loosening gun restrictions (http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/gun-restrictions-house-vote-concealed-carry/index.html)
(CNN)The House of Representatives approved legislation Wednesday loosening gun regulations and allowing those with permits to carry concealed weapons to legally travel with those firearms to other states, a top priority of the National Rifle Association.
The bill passed mostly along party lines, 231-198, with six Democrats supporting it. Fourteen Republicans opposed the legislation, the first major firearms-related bill Congress has voted on since the massacres in Las Vegas and Texas earlier this year.
Republicans argued that Americans' Second Amendment rights to bear arms should not end when they cross state lines.
"The Bill of Rights is not a philosophical exercise," Georgia GOP Rep. Doug Collins, who personally had a concealed carry permit for what described as self-defense reasons. "I don't think that right should be undermined simply because I travel to another state."
Democrats angrily denounced the legislation, known as "concealed carry reciprocity."
Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, called the bill "a disgraceful handout to the powerful gun lobby and gun manufacturers," and said the party's initials "GOP" should stand for "guns over people."
The NRA had fiercely lobbied for its passing.
"This vote marks a watershed moment for Second Amendment rights," said NRA executive director for legislative action Chris Cox. "The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is the culmination of a 30-year movement recognizing the right of all law-abiding Americans to defend themselves, and their loved ones, including when they cross state lines."
North Carolina GOP Rep. Richard Hudson, the author of the bill, recounted a story on the House floor about a woman from Pennsylvania with no criminal record who held a concealed carry permit for her pistol, which was not recognized when she traveled to New Jersey, and was later jailed.
"Are you serious? We have to make sure that never happens again," Hudson said. He compared concealed carry permits to marriage licenses or divorce decrees, and drivers' licenses, which are recognized in other states.
Connecticut Democratic Rep. Elizabeth Esty, who represents Newtown, where nearly five years ago 20 elementary school children and six teachers were murdered in a mass shooting, called the bill "an outrage and an insult to the families" of those killed by gun violence.
Wednesday's vote marked the first time since Newtown that the House took up any significant gun legislation, something several Democrats raised, citing recent mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas without any action on proposals related to those incidents.
Former Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords, a survivor of a mass shooting that left her seriously wounded, dug up old tweets, Facebook posts and press releases from Republican lawmakers who voted for the concealed carry bill where they offered their "thoughts and prayers." Giffords retweeted these posts, adding that those good wishes won't get the job done when it comes to stopping gun violence.
"Thoughts & prayers alone will not prevent the next horrific tragedy. I'm disappointed that @DarrellIssa just voted to weaken our gun laws. This is not the kind of leadership our nation deserves," Giffords tweeted at Republican Rep. Darrell Issa in just one of nearly 40 responses she had sent out.
Thoughts & prayers alone will not prevent the next horrific tragedy. I'm disappointed that @DarrellIssa (https://twitter.com/DarrellIssa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) just voted to weaken our gun laws. This is not the kind of leadership our nation deserves. https://t.co/456DjH5b2S
— Gabrielle Giffords (@GabbyGiffords) December 6, 2017 (https://twitter.com/GabbyGiffords/status/938533639398281216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Many Democrats were also incensed that the bill was merged with two other measures with bipartisan support. One would fill in holes in the National Criminal Instant Background Check system (NCIS) that were highlighted after a mass shooting at a Texas church last month, in which the gunman, a former Air Force member, was able to buy guns even though he had a criminal record that the military failed to report to the database.
The other would direct the Bureau of Justice Statistics to study all crimes involving firearms and report back to Congress in six months about how many involved weapons with "bump fire stocks," accessories that can allow semi-automatic weapons guns to fire at a rate similar automatic ones. The shooter responsible for killing 58 people and injuring nearly 500 more attending a Las Vegas concert in October used bump stocks to direct large amounts of ammunition on the crowd, and members from both parties have called for ban on them.
Hastings predicted the measure was "going nowhere" in the Senate, where Republicans control the chamber but would need backing from eight Democrats to avoid a filibuster.
Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the number two Senate GOP Leader, said on Monday that merging the gun bills complicated the path forward in the Senate and suggested splitting off the background check fix. He has a bipartisan bill on that issue with Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy.
"I support both of those bills but I recognize that if you combine them it makes it a lot harder to pass the consensus bill which is the fix NICS bill," Cornyn said. "And I think it's important enough that we ought to handle those sequentially, would be my advice."
This story has been updated and will continue to update with additional developments.
CNN's Ted Barrett and Caroline Kenny contributed to this story.
Bailey Guns
12-07-2017, 07:26
Getting a bill up for debate, much less passing, in the senate will be the hard part.
Big time.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Heres the part that maybe Gman doesn't get, (although there is no guarantee this is how the new law if passed and signed would be enforced). Say you live in California where there is an approved handgun roster, mag capacity limits, and is a may issue State. If you as a hypothetical California citizen apply for and successfully receive a concealed carry permit from a State that offers non-resident permits such as Utah or Florida you can legally carry in the State of California whatever firearm, magazine capacity, or ammunition is legal in the state from which you obtained your permit. This would of course significantly undermine most of the unconstitutional firearm laws in ban States pertaining to handguns.
For states that have constitutional carry such as Arizona and Vermont a resident needing to prove to law enforcement that he was lawfully concealed carrying a firearm in a ban state such as Hawaii or Maryland would only need a valid photo identification card issued from the constitutional carry State in which he or she resided.
There could and probably will be conflicts with laws such as the Colorado + 15 round capacity magazines that are not grandfathered under that law as that law is written in such a way that even having an out-of-State permit from say Utah where they do not have magazine restrictions might not necessarily be covered by the proposed National Reciprocity Law.
Obviously overzealous anti-gun legislators and state attorneys would probably counter-sue on some nitpicky grounds in an attempt to maintain their control over their citizens and safe face under the Trump administration.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
For states that have constitutional carry such as Arizona and Vermont a resident needing to prove to law enforcement that he was lawfully concealed carrying a firearm in a ban state such as Hawaii or Maryland would only need a valid photo identification card issued from the constitutional carry State in which he or she resided.
I'm not holding my breath that anything useful is going to come out of this Senate.
It seemed that the House bill was stating that the photo ID had to be related to CCW from the resident state, not some other unrelated photo ID, like a driver's license. It didn't seem to me that there was inclusion of residents that came from constitutional carry states. Did I misread something in there?
If this somehow does become law, how it's enforced will be "interesting".
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
We should all take a road trip to Cali. Maybe sprint on the beach in slow motion, with artistic still shots of a glock in a holster poking out from beneath a beach towel.
Zundfolge
12-07-2017, 12:48
Getting a bill up for debate, much less passing, in the senate will be the hard part.
What's interesting is that if McConnell stonewalls this one too THIS will be his final undoing.
Nothing fires up the GOP base like gun rights ... if they fail to bring this to the floor in the Senate it'll be a RINO bloodbath in the upcoming primaries and McConnell will not survive as majority leader.
I'm not holding my breath that anything useful is going to come out of this Senate.
It seemed that the House bill was stating that the photo ID had to be related to CCW from the resident state, not some other unrelated photo ID, like a driver's license. It didn't seem to me that there was inclusion of residents that came from constitutional carry states. Did I misread something in there?
If this somehow does become law, how it's enforced will be "interesting".
Sent from my SM-N950U using TapatalkSo then it would be *almost* National Reciprocity. Vermont has NO CCW/CHP/CCP/Licensing requirements or even a structure to issue them. A Vt. Citizen visiting Colorado would only need prove he resides in Vt. A person visiting CA would need a valid Concealed Carry Permit from any State or Territory that issues one, or be from Vt. with a Vt. I.D.,(or whatever Constitutional carry state they are from).
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I think the reality, if this ever makes it to become black letter law, is that a CCW permit will be treated much like a driver's license, in that it will allow carry by persons from another state, but subject to local and state rules. Just as some states require turn signals on motorcycles, and others do not, states which regulate magazine size would not have their laws abrogated by this measure. Just because you have a Colorado driver's license doesn't mean you're not getting a ticket for not having turn signals in Utah. Much like current reciprocity, the responsibility for knowing and complying with local carry restrictions will still fall on the permit holder.
Heres the part that maybe Gman doesn't get, (although there is no guarantee this is how the new law if passed and signed would be enforced). Say you live in California where there is an approved handgun roster, mag capacity limits, and is a may issue State. If you as a hypothetical California citizen apply for and successfully receive a concealed carry permit from a State that offers non-resident permits such as Utah or Florida you can legally carry in the State of California whatever firearm, magazine capacity, or ammunition is legal in the state from which you obtained your permit. This would of course significantly undermine most of the unconstitutional firearm laws in ban States pertaining to handguns.
For states that have constitutional carry such as Arizona and Vermont a resident needing to prove to law enforcement that he was lawfully concealed carrying a firearm in a ban state such as Hawaii or Maryland would only need a valid photo identification card issued from the constitutional carry State in which he or she resided.
There could and probably will be conflicts with laws such as the Colorado + 15 round capacity magazines that are not grandfathered under that law as that law is written in such a way that even having an out-of-State permit from say Utah where they do not have magazine restrictions might not necessarily be covered by the proposed National Reciprocity Law.
Obviously overzealous anti-gun legislators and state attorneys would probably counter-sue on some nitpicky grounds in an attempt to maintain their control over their citizens and safe face under the Trump administration.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I just read through the text of the bill again, and I didn't see anything that states you don't have to abide by the laws of the state your visiting. Pretty sure if there are limitations in CA as to magazine capacity, and you violate that law while in CA, you're going to be arrested and charged. This bill allows CCW, but does nothing to make null and void any other law. You still have to abide by the laws of the state you are visiting.
I think the reality, if this ever makes it to become black letter law, is that a CCW permit will be treated much like a driver's license, in that it will allow carry by persons from another state, but subject to local and state rules. Just as some states require turn signals on motorcycles, and others do not, states which regulate magazine size would not have their laws abrogated by this measure. Just because you have a Colorado driver's license doesn't mean you're not getting a ticket for not having turn signals in Utah. Much like current reciprocity, the responsibility for knowing and complying with local carry restrictions will still fall on the permit holder.
This.
Okay, after reading these recent comments, I'm not feeling so alone in thinking this is going to be a legal morass. I certainly don't have the free time or budget to be first in line to test the fences.
But if we have questions about the practicality of this bill, I *really* don't see it making it out of the Senate.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171207/08ff3d52ea65a265df79e0ebba790253.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171207/9daef0157ba27945a248141ffe204434.jpg
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2017, 15:50
So then it would be *almost* National Reciprocity. Vermont has NO CCW/CHP/CCP/Licensing requirements or even a structure to issue them. A Vt. Citizen visiting Colorado would only need prove he resides in Vt. A person visiting CA would need a valid Concealed Carry Permit from any State or Territory that issues one, or be from Vt. with a Vt. I.D.,(or whatever Constitutional carry state they are from).
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
CA has no statewide CCW permit, so it and other states like NJ and NY you're SOL. The bill is for states that have state wide or shall issue CCW permits.
There's that whole states rights issue we rail about.
CA has no statewide CCW permit, so it and other states like NJ and NY you're SOL. The bill is for states that have state wide or shall issue CCW permits.
There's that whole states rights issue we rail about.
Here's the real question: Why would you want to go to CA? We keep harping on it, but in reality, outside of having to go for work, why would you go to Commiefornia. Especially now, since it's so hostile (and on fire).
CA has no statewide CCW permit, so it and other states like NJ and NY you're SOL. The bill is for states that have state wide or shall issue CCW permits.
There's that whole states rights issue we rail about.
There is the whole state's rights issue but in this case the federal gov't did what it was supposed to do: step in when a state suppresses rights of it's residents through unjust laws in order the return rights that were infringed upon. Hell, that & protecting our national borders are the only two tasks our federal gov't should be in charge of.
The entire point of this bill is to allow anyone legally able to obtain a CHP in their locale to freely travel within the boundaries and border of the U.S. and carry their concealed habdgun with them. HR 218, but for CCW'ers.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
bobbyfairbanks
12-07-2017, 16:56
There is the whole state's rights issue but in this case the federal gov't did what it was supposed to do: step in when a state suppresses rights of it's residents through unjust laws in order the return rights that were infringed upon. Hell, that & protecting our national borders are the only two tasks our federal gov't should be in charge of.
Yes I couldn’t agree more. I wish more people would think like you
What really going to be interesting is the Dems screaming "10th Amendment" and watching them tie themselves in knots trying to justify why it applies to this issue and not the myriad of other issues on which the federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority.
The entire point of this bill is to allow anyone legally able to obtain a CHP in their locale to freely travel within the boundaries and border of the U.S. and carry their concealed habdgun with them. HR 218, but for CCW'ers.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Again, see above, NOTHING in the bill states that you are free to carry whatever firearm you want if it's in violation of the state in which you are visiting.
Again, see above, NOTHING in the bill states that you are free to carry whatever firearm you want if it's in violation of the state in which you are visiting.How would you interpret this then?
"The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine."
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
How would you interpret this then?
The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine."
It's just a legal definition. But by all means, be the test subject for this case and carry a fully loaded G17 with 17-round magazines in Los Angeles and see how that works out for you.
It's just a legal definition. But by all means, be the test subject for this case and carry a fully loaded G17 with 17-round magazines in Los Angeles and see how that works out for you.I understand it is a legal definition, what I should have asked was what does it in fact legally define. It appears to ME to state that for the purposes of this Federal Law it covers not just the handgun, but the magazine in my handgun, as well the ammunition in my magazine. Otherwise I would have to carry a handgun that met CA, CO, HI, MA, MD, NY, & RI approved carry handgun roster with ball anmunition and no more than a 7 round capacity magazine inserted in order to be 50 state legal.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
How would you interpret this then?
The term ‘handgun’ includes any magazine for use in a handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its magazine."
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
It's simple: I get a Colorado license. Once I have that & I travel to Iowa I'm legal to operate a motor vehicle under THAT state's laws. If I travel to Iowa I must adhere to the (idiotic) speed limit of 65mph & other laws that govern operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. Just because I have a Colorado permit I can't say "piss on this 65mph BS, I'm doing MY states speed limit of 75mph!" legally.
It's not as complex as some are making this.
No wonder we can't ever get our way as a community. Every time we get the opportunity to people want to prove how much topical legal experience they have & convince everyone else why getting what we want us wrong & will screw us in the long run. Eesh
I understand it is a legal definition, what I should have asked was what does it in fact legally define. It appears to ME to state that for the purposes of this Federal Law it covers not just the handgun, but the magazine in my handgun, as well the ammunition in my magazine. Otherwise I would have to carry a handgun that met CA, CO, HI, MA, MD, NY, & RI approved carry handgun roster with ball anmunition and no more than a 7 round capacity magazine inserted in order to be 50 state legal.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
If you travel to CA you carry based on their laws or.... Don't. Pretty simple, right? At least we now have a carry option in CA.
It's simple: I get a Colorado license. Once I have that & I travel to Iowa I'm legal to operate a motor vehicle under THAT state's laws. If I travel to Iowa I must adhere to the (idiotic) speed limit of 65mph & other laws that govern operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. Just because I have a Colorado permit I can't say "piss on this 65mph BS, I'm doing MY states speed limit of 75mph!" legally.I totally get your point as well as Ronin 13's point. The difference between your example about Motor Vehicles is that you don't have to get out of your vehicle and modify your fuel tank, your wheelbase, or what model of every day sedan or truck that you drive and operate in order to enter another state and drive through that state. Of course if you use a firearm in self-defense within the boundaries and borders of a state that is not your own you must adhere to all of the requirements and legal stipulations under the state law of which you are visiting or traveling through.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I understand it is a legal definition, what I should have asked was what does it in fact legally define. It appears to ME to state that for the purposes of this Federal Law it covers not just the handgun, but the magazine in my handgun, as well the ammunition in my magazine. Otherwise I would have to carry a handgun that met CA, CO, HI, MA, MD, NY, & RI approved carry handgun roster with ball anmunition and no more than a 7 round capacity magazine inserted in order to be 50 state legal.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Looks to me like standard boilerplate legislative definition of what exactly is entailed in a "handgun" to include magazine and ammunition. This bill does not include specific language that overrides state law concerning magazine capacity or ammunition type.
Looks to me like standard boilerplate legislative definition of what exactly is entailed in a "handgun" to include magazine and ammunition. This bill does not include specific language that overrides state law concerning magazine capacity or ammunition type.Why do you think they chose to specifically mention the magazine and ammunition but not any other part, component, or accessory that one might find on a handgun? I know how these things tend to get personal, heated, and ruffle people's feathers. I am not trying to do that with any of you guys. The law hasn't reached the Senate yet, hasn't been voted on, passed, reconciled with the house bill, placed on the President's desk, or signed by the President. A lot can happen or not happen to this or any other bill before any of that happens.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Why do you think they chose to specifically mention the magazine and ammunition but not any other part, component, or accessory that one might find on a handgun? I know how these things tend to get personal, heated, and ruffle people's feathers. I am not trying to do that with any of you guys. The law hasn't reached the Senate yet, hasn't been voted on, passed, reconciled with the house bill, placed on the President's desk, or signed by the President. A lot can happen or not happen to this or any other bill before any of that happens.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I have many ideas on why they worded that way, one being that they're legislators and they're not exactly the brightest light bulbs in the knife drawer. They used the all encompassing magazine + ammunition included in the definition, despite it being a slight departure from 18 US Code 921 which states: "The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled."
I can't speculate on the reasons for this, but again, as the law states, and my reading of the law, there is no provision allowing for the overriding of any state laws regarding firearms. I understand people get upset, but you'd be out of your mind if you think I'd try to travel to CA as a private citizen with my CCW weapon carrying 15-round magazines loaded with +P hollow-point 9mm ammunition. Now, as a Certified LEO, that's a different story.
I have many ideas on why they worded that way, one being that they're legislators and they're not exactly the brightest light bulbs in the knife drawer. They used the all encompassing magazine + ammunition included in the definition, despite it being a slight departure from 18 US Code 921 which states: "The term “handgun” means—
(A) a firearm which has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand; and
(B) any combination of parts from which a firearm described in subparagraph (A) can be assembled."
I can't speculate on the reasons for this, but again, as the law states, and my reading of the law, there is no provision allowing for the overriding of any state laws regarding firearms. I understand people get upset, but you'd be out of your mind if you think I'd try to travel to CA as a private citizen with my CCW weapon carrying 15-round magazines loaded with +P hollow-point 9mm ammunition. Now, as a Certified LEO, that's a different story.Or you could allegedly of course concealed carry wherever you wish and get away with it because it's concealed.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2017, 18:08
Here's the real question: Why would you want to go to CA? We keep harping on it, but in reality, outside of having to go for work, why would you go to Commiefornia. Especially now, since it's so hostile (and on fire).
We go there every other year to see the daughter and other friends. Most of them who as of wed morning lost everything in the ventura cty fire. CA is real nice to visit if one stays off the coast and away from LA, SF. FWIW: we carry every where we travel in one way or another. I'd ask the same of people who go to Boulder or Denver, outside of work
Yes I couldn’t agree more. I wish more people would think like you
More people do think that way. Unfortunately less of us vote than should.
CA has no statewide CCW permit, so it and other states like NJ and NY you're SOL. The bill is for states that have state wide or shall issue CCW permits.
There's that whole states rights issue we rail about.
CO doesn't have a statewide permit. They're issued by counties. In reading some of the articles in CA newspapers, this bill would also apply to CA, even though they "keep the bar higher" on who can get a permit.
In reading some articles analyzing the bill and its impacts, some state that even CA residents would be able to get a non-resident permit from another state which would allow them to legally carry in CA.
Why would people visit CA? CA really does have some beautiful country. Some of us may have family behind enemy lines and do occasionally want to visit them. The biggest problem in CA is that coastal libtards have been able to manipulate the system in CA to give themselves an advantage. You will usually find quite a different political representation between Western (D) and Eastern (R) parts of CA.
I totally get your point as well as Ronin 13's point. The difference between your example about Motor Vehicles is that you don't have to get out of your vehicle and modify your fuel tank, your wheelbase, or what model of every day sedan or truck that you drive and operate in order to enter another state and drive through that state. Of course if you use a firearm in self-defense within the boundaries and borders of a state that is not your own you must adhere to all of the requirements and legal stipulations under the state law of which you are visiting or traveling through.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Some states(Montana, among others), allow ATVs to be licensed and operated on secondary roads. That doesn't mean having a Montana driver's license allows one to do that in Colorado.
Unless the federal government makes a huge power grab and chooses to try to override ALL state and local firearms laws, there will always be differences that we will have to accommodate. New York and New Jersey have given the USG the finger on LEOSA provisions on many occasions, and so far have not faced any consequences.
https://www.policeone.com/retirement/articles/8651660-Blue-Hawaii-Some-states-make-CCW-under-LEOSA-tough-for-cops/
Some states(Montana, among others), allow ATVs to be licensed and operated on secondary roads. That doesn't mean having a Montana driver's license allows on to do that in Colorado.
Unless the federal government makes a huge power grab and chooses to try to override ALL state and local firearms laws, there will always be differences that we will have to accommodate. New York and New Jersey have given the USG the finger on LEOSA provisions on many occasions, and so far have not faced any consequences.Using examples that specify HOW an item is used, is in my mind a bit different than allowing or not allowing an item to be carried on the person.
You can own an ATV in Montana, you can own one in Colorado, you can drive them in each state, yes you can't drive one on the street here in CO, and in some states you would have a duty to retreat, or run into trouble if your shirt lifted and you "flashed" someone your peice.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
Why do you think they chose to specifically mention the magazine and ammunition but not any other part, component, or accessory that one might find on a handgun? I know how these things tend to get personal, heated, and ruffle people's feathers. I am not trying to do that with any of you guys. The law hasn't reached the Senate yet, hasn't been voted on, passed, reconciled with the house bill, placed on the President's desk, or signed by the President. A lot can happen or not happen to this or any other bill before any of that happens.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I, for one, totally appreciate your input. It's helping me try to wrap my brain around it.
If it ever does include California, I guess you'd better bring your own ammo since they have background checks for ammo purchases coming in 2018.
Yet, I still think these are theoretical discussions since I don't see anything that benefits us coming out of the Senate.
Great-Kazoo
12-07-2017, 18:48
CO doesn't have a statewide permit. They're issued by counties. In reading some of the articles in CA newspapers, this bill would also apply to CA, even though they "keep the bar higher" on who can get a permit.
In reading some articles analyzing the bill and its impacts, some state that even CA residents would be able to get a non-resident permit from another state which would allow them to legally carry in CA.
Why would people visit CA? CA really does have some beautiful country. Some of us may have family behind enemy lines and do occasionally want to visit them. The biggest problem in CA is that coastal libtards have been able to manipulate the system in CA to give themselves an advantage. You will usually find quite a different political representation between Western (D) and Eastern (R) parts of CA. How True, especially when you're visiting and the kids down the road ride up on their atv's with rifles slung over their shoulder. Or you're shooting semi's until dark and no one has called the local LE.
You're incorrect. At one time permits were issued by counties, depending on the sheriffs political and personal belief. Then CO passed state wide CCW, meaning it was no longer the discretion of the sheriff to say yea or nay. Unless you failed the BGC the sheriff of your county had to issue a permit. Yes it's issued by the counties sheriffs, however it's a state law no longer the whim of who ever is in office.
In CA there is no state recognized CCW permit, instead they have what CO use to. Issued based on belief , political leaning or who knows who.
I totally get your point as well as Ronin 13's point. The difference between your example about Motor Vehicles is that you don't have to get out of your vehicle and modify your fuel tank, your wheelbase, or what model of every day sedan or truck that you drive and operate in order to enter another state and drive through that state. Of course if you use a firearm in self-defense within the boundaries and borders of a state that is not your own you must adhere to all of the requirements and legal stipulations under the state law of which you are visiting or traveling through.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
I think the important part of my post that you chose to deemphasize was the fact that I said... Or don't. This was your option before and it's still an option. But for the rest of us normal human beings that appreciate the fact that we would get some of our freedoms handed back to us by virtue of this bill I for one am happy that we now have another option that doesn't include using a straw as a deadly weapon.
If that means that I have to choose a different gun to conceal on my person and top it off with different ammo at a lower capacity then so be it. Again, this certainly beats the previous other option which was no other option at all. So you're unhappy with having to tailor your carry piece to the state you're traveling to then simply treat it the way it was before this passed and don't carry one. Don't crap in the rest of our Cheerios on this one.
I swear to God we as a community bend over backwards to give up more of our freedoms and not get more back than any other community currently having their freedoms challenged. This is why all we get is fewer freedoms and we never seem to get any back because we're all too fucking paranoid to get them back once we fight for them.
hurley842002
12-07-2017, 21:27
A lot of winning from Jer tonight!
I think the important part of my post that you chose to deemphasize was the fact that I said... Or don't. This was your option before and it's still an option. But for the rest of us normal human beings that appreciate the fact that we would get some of our freedoms handed back to us by virtue of this bill I for one am happy that we now have another option that doesn't include using a straw as a deadly weapon.
If that means that I have to choose a different gun to conceal on my person and top it off with different ammo at a lower capacity then so be it. Again, this certainly beats the previous other option which was no other option at all. So you're unhappy with having to tailor your carry piece to the state you're traveling to then simply treat it the way it was before this passed and don't carry one. Don't crap in the rest of our Cheerios on this one.
I swear to God we as a community bend over backwards to give up more of our freedoms and not get more back than any other community currently having their freedoms challenged. This is why all we get is fewer freedoms and we never seem to get any back because we're all too fucking paranoid to get them back once we fight for them.The most important part of concealed carry when in a ban state is the concealed aspect. I would never look at a state that says "No peon, you shall not do X, Y, or Z" and say "Yessah-Massa" and roll over. That said I would hope we as gun owning voters would push for rolling back of any law that infringes. That and it would be nice to not run the risk of getting made.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
CA has no statewide CCW permit, so it and other states like NJ and NY you're SOL. The bill is for states that have state wide or shall issue CCW permits.
There's that whole states rights issue we rail about.
States should have zero right to regulate rights given in the constitution. I have no problem with federal control destroying local control on this. No limits on the type, size, color, features, or capacity. Same as they should have zero say on what can be printed, spoken, ect..
spqrzilla
12-07-2017, 22:33
Ahem
[beatdeadhorse]
States should have zero right to regulate rights given in the constitution.
No rights are given in the Constitution.
Otherwise I would have to carry a handgun that met CA, CO, HI, MA, MD, NY, & RI approved carry handgun roster with ball anmunition and no more than a 7 round capacity magazine inserted in order to be 50 state legal.
Just a point of clarification regarding California's roster. You can own and carry off-roster handguns, you just can't purchase them in CA. Unless you're LEO with a department letter.
hurley842002
12-08-2017, 06:42
Just a point of clarification regarding California's roster. You can own and carry off-roster handguns, you just can't purchase them in CA. Unless you're LEO with a department letter.This is correct.
Just a point of clarification regarding California's roster. You can own and carry off-roster handguns, you just can't purchase them in CA. Unless you're LEO with a department letter.
Thank you
lurchnp81
12-08-2017, 09:27
This is correct.
Partly correct. Off roster handguns can only be purchased through an FFL by LEO. Off roster handguns may be sold between private parties and can also be obtained through the intra familial transfer exemptions. Parent or Grand Parent living outside of CA may gift an off roster handgun to a child/grand child...or vice versa
Unless the federal government makes a huge power grab and chooses to try to override ALL state and local firearms laws, there will always be differences that we will have to accommodate. New York and New Jersey have given the USG the finger on LEOSA provisions on many occasions, and so far have not faced any consequences.
https://www.policeone.com/retirement/articles/8651660-Blue-Hawaii-Some-states-make-CCW-under-LEOSA-tough-for-cops/
Wow! I've heard from coworkers who traveled to NYC state that there were some issues with LEOSA carry in the city and that many in NYPD act like they're better than other cops in their city. That's not the intent of LEOSA. Good to know I won't be visiting Hawaii, as that seems like a headache just to follow the law.
Wow! I've heard from coworkers who traveled to NYC state that there were some issues with LEOSA carry in the city and that many in NYPD act like they're better than other cops in their city. That's not the intent of LEOSA. Good to know I won't be visiting Hawaii, as that seems like a headache just to follow the law.
Would think other cities would be more worried about NYC cops, given their penchant for hitting everyone but the criminal.
hurley842002
12-08-2017, 09:57
Partly correct. Off roster handguns can only be purchased through an FFL by LEO. Off roster handguns may be sold between private parties and can also be obtained through the intra familial transfer exemptions. Parent or Grand Parent living outside of CA may gift an off roster handgun to a child/grand child...or vice versaYeah I think I may have scanned the previous post too quickly (as I sometimes do), you are correct.
Partly correct. Off roster handguns can only be purchased through an FFL by LEO. Off roster handguns may be sold between private parties and can also be obtained through the intra familial transfer exemptions. Parent or Grand Parent living outside of CA may gift an off roster handgun to a child/grand child...or vice versaYou are correct. But since non-residents are not able to buy or sell a gun in California the distinction doesn't matter. The point is we don't need to worry about the roster for traveling to CA.
My fear: If the precedent is set that CC can be enabled across all states at the national level, it can be disabled across all states at the national level. Which the dems will do in less that a week once they come back into power (love it or hate it, the dems get things done, unlike the 'pubs).
We need Supreme Court decisions rendering gun control unconstitutional, not legislation.
By pursuing legislative remedies, we’re only saying that gun control is a legislative, not a constitutional issue.
So, basically, we’re 'effed either way.
O2
My fear: If the precedent is set that CC can be enabled across all states at the national level, it can be disabled across all states at the national level. Which the dems will do in less that a week once they come back into power (love it or hate it, the dems get things done, unlike the 'pubs).
We need Supreme Court decisions rendering gun control unconstitutional, not legislation.
By pursuing legislative remedies, we’re only saying that gun control is a legislative, not a constitutional issue.
So, basically, we’re 'effed either way.
O2
The 'pubs don't get anything done because of posts like yours. It's a bunch of paranoid people sitting around spreading FUD & unreal scenarios until they convince everyone that getting more firearms freedoms is somehow bad thus proving how smart they are. Dafuq!?
You really think those who wish to take said freedoms are as hung up on this sort of thing? This is why all we do is continue to lose ground. One step forward then three back.
You are correct. But since non-residents are not able to buy or sell a gun in California the distinction doesn't matter. The point is we don't need to worry about the roster for traveling to CA.
Thanks for the clarification guys.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
lurchnp81
12-08-2017, 12:37
You are correct. But since non-residents are not able to buy or sell a gun in California the distinction doesn't matter. The point is we don't need to worry about the roster for traveling to CA.
Agreed
Great-Kazoo
12-08-2017, 12:58
You are correct. But since non-residents are not able to buy or sell a gun in California the distinction doesn't matter. The point is we don't need to worry about the roster for traveling to CA.
Actually they can, Providing the firearm is not on the banned AW CADOJ or approved list. I can and have purchased long guns in CA with my ffl's signed copy in hand. I had them shipped to him here.
All of this information simply proves the fact that states are NOT going to give up their individual gun laws, which are often complex and even contradictory, simple because the Feds say so. IF this legislation somehow makes it into law without being utterly watered down and essentially toothless, the AGs of the commie states will tie up its implementation eternally in court, or at least until the dems manage to wrest control back. That's not to say I'm averse to the effort, I just think it's doomed.
Zundfolge
12-08-2017, 17:23
My fear: If the precedent is set that CC can be enabled across all states at the national level, it can be disabled across all states at the national level. Which the dems will do in less that a week once they come back into power...
When the Dems get back into power at the federal level, CCW will be the least of our worries as Civil War 2.0 will likely fire up before they get a chance to reverse national reciprocity.
When the Dems get back into power at the federal level, CCW will be the least of our worries as Civil War 2.0 will likely fire up before they get a chance to reverse national reciprocity.
How many years have you been saying this now?
Zundfolge
12-08-2017, 19:13
How many years have you been saying this now?
I only started saying this during the last election and had Hillary won it would have come to pass. At this point it looks like Trump is but a temporary reprieve from the coming implosion of the USA. I can't see a future where Democrats and Republicans can peacefully co-exist forever, one side is going to have to win and fully transform the country into their ideal (and I don't think the R's are ever going to get us back to our constitutional roots, they'll just re-arrange deck chairs on the Titanic until we finally hit the iceberg).
But hey, I'd love to be proved wrong.
Have you guys seen the Budd Letter as introduced by
Congressman Ted Budd (R-NC)?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.