Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act vote on Wednesday!

[Joe_K]

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

[Ronin13]

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.

[Joe_K]

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

[Jer]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[Joe_K]

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

[Ronin13]

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.

[Joe_K]

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

[Gman]

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.

[Rumline]

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.