Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act vote on Wednesday!

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbyfairbanks

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo

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.

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.

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...ough-for-cops/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

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.

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.

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.

A lot of winning from Jer tonight!