Printable View
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
How would you interpret this then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
"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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MOLON LABE
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin13
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk