The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 25, 2011, 12:57 PM   #176
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
I travel to NY frequently. Let's say H.R. 822 does pass and gets signed into law; I could then carry in NY "subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State."

New York code section 400.00.7 states "Such license shall specify the weapon covered by caliber, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number."

Since my carry permit does not list specific weapons I am licensed to carry, it does not seem to me that I would be able to meet the "same conditions or limitations that apply" to NY residents.

I suspect many people from other less-restrictive states would be totally unable to meet quirky requirements in the more-restrictive states. If true, how much of the promise of H.R. 822 is just an illusion?
gc70 is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 01:16 PM   #177
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
More than an illusion, it is a real image, that of a Trojan horse. Buyer beware.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 25, 2011, 07:33 PM   #178
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
I travel to NY frequently. Let's say H.R. 822 does pass and gets signed into law; I could then carry in NY "subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State."

New York code section 400.00.7 states "Such license shall specify the weapon covered by caliber, make, model, manufacturer's name and serial number."

Since my carry permit does not list specific weapons I am licensed to carry, it does not seem to me that I would be able to meet the "same conditions or limitations that apply" to NY residents.

I suspect many people from other less-restrictive states would be totally unable to meet quirky requirements in the more-restrictive states. If true, how much of the promise of H.R. 822 is just an illusion?
You are confusing conditions of the license with conditions applicable to carrying pursuant to the license. If your state doesn't require listing your eligible carry weapons, they would not have to be listed. If NY prohibits carrying in pet stores operated by female owners -- your home state license would not authorize you to carry in a NY pet store operated by a female owner.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old November 25, 2011, 08:52 PM   #179
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
You are confusing conditions of the license with conditions applicable to carrying pursuant to the license
Sorry, but I don't see the distinction you make in the language of the bill.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 01:52 AM   #180
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
it keeps coming; I guess an election is near. the comments are interesting @ the end

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...n-public-lands

gc70. keep it simple(referring to your last post//above article and my post's title are seperate entities). that is small potatoes. It really isn't that complicated and those little things would be ironed out.

Actually it wouldn't even be an issue as already explained: your state - not the federal government - would be in charge of the CCW process. Your CCW might be different, look different, and so-on from NY's. This wouldn't change the fact that your state issued CCW would be recognized & legally binding.
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 02:49 AM   #181
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
CA would simply place so many conditions of carry on the CCW holder to render all CA permits essentially useless such as enforcing the no gun zones at schools and a 1000 feet around them. They could simply expand the no gun zone to 10,000 feet and include CCW permits in that making carry essentially a deep woods thing only. Who cares, you can open carry in the woods if you are worried about the 4 legged predators already in the national forest areas that is.

NOTHING good will come of this law.

Hold the course, we are winning. Don't fall for this Fed trap, it will come back to bite us all.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 03:47 AM   #182
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
I was thinking of the Fox news article therealdeal posted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...ics-for-obama/

I don't think 822 has very much of a chance of becoming law as has been stated in this thread many times. It faces serious challenges in the senate, but one thing the bill does do is it causes problems for gun control politicians in an election year. The president really does not want to see this make it to his desk, it's one of those situations with zero upside potential. He's not going to win any votes no matter what he does, if he signs it into law or vetos it.

The bill is accomplishing a lot just by going through the legislative process.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 10:57 AM   #183
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealdeal
gc70. keep it simple(referring to your last post//above article and my post's title are seperate entities). that is small potatoes. It really isn't that complicated and those little things would be ironed out.
It is easy to be enthused about the concept of nationwide reciprocity, but "those little things" are the practical issues that might land a person in Riker's Island on felony charges. While I don't see the distinction made in Aguila Blanca's post in the language of the bill, that post did thoughtfully address the question rather than dismissing it as something that "would be ironed out" later.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 01:36 PM   #184
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,949
The distinction is (at least, as I view it) that -- to use your example -- NY's listing of what handguns you are allowed to carry is a condition of the license. In NY, you are not licensed to carry "A" handgun (any handgun), you are licensed to carry only those handguns enumerated on your license. The limitations on where and how you may carry are separate. The example I created of a pet shop operated by a female owner was intended as an extreme example. It does not affect the carry license or the process of issuing it, it affects only WHERE you may carry once you have the license.

Again to pursue your NY example, if I lived in NY and I had a license that says I can carry a Kimber Ultra Carry serial number XYZ12345, that's part of my license. IMHO (as a non-attorney), that same restriction on my license would follow me around the country if HR 822 were to pass. In other words, I would be allowed to carry in Utah or New Mexico or Indiana on the basis of my NY state license -- but even in those states I would still be allowed to carry only my Kimber Ultra Carry #XYZ12345, since that's what my license says I am allowed to carry. But in New Mexico I would be subject to New Mexico's rules regarding where I can carry (such as banks, bars, government buildings, or pet shops operated by female owners).
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old November 26, 2011, 07:04 PM   #185
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
sorry GC, I don't see how it was 'dismissed'. When the law is passed, those questions can easily be answered. having some unanswered questions before a law is enacted is reason to hold off? huh
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 10:16 PM   #186
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
In NY, you are not licensed to carry "A" handgun (any handgun), you are licensed to carry only those handguns enumerated on your license. The limitations on where and how you may carry are separate.
Thank you for the further explanation, Aguila Blanca. Your concept of how the law would/should work is perfectly sensible. Whether the language of the bill does, or is meant to, support your reading is probably a topic best left for another discussion. However ...

I would like your thoughts on whether magazine capacity limits (in the states that have them) would fall under a condition of the license or a limitation on where and how (and maybe what) you may carry.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 10:17 PM   #187
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,107
I have deleted irrelevant posts about health care. You should know better.

Stay on topic.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 10:28 PM   #188
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 5,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
I would like your thoughts on whether magazine capacity limits (in the states that have them) would fall under a condition of the license or a limitation on where and how (and maybe what) you may carry.
Just to reiterate all over again (courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department): I am not a lawyer, and I have never portrayed one on stage, screen, or television.

That said: I believe in those states that have magazine capacity limitations, those limitations are in other sections of the law than the licensure parts. There is nothing on a NY state carry license (so far as I know) that says whatever handgun(s) you are allowed to carry may not have a capacity greater than 10 rounds. Ditto for New Jersey and California.

Thus, the capacity limits do not affect the license, but the local restrictions on carry. Since the expiration of the Federal AWB I am allowed to own (and carry) pistols with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. (Actually, I could during the AWB, too -- if I sought out pre-ban magazines.) However, handguns with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are not legal in California. So, if I were to travel to California with a handgun (even today, knowing I can't "carry" it in California, but I can possess it) I would take a pistol that holds 10 rounds or fewer. Since I'm basically a 1911 guy anyway, that's not a problem for me. If I were a Glockenspiel, it would be more problematic.

I expect the same would hold true if HR 822 (or similar legislation) were enacted.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old November 26, 2011, 10:44 PM   #189
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Just to reiterate all over again (courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department): I am not a lawyer, and I have never portrayed one on stage, screen, or television.
I knew you were not a lawyer; you answer questions with patience and reason - and for free.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 11:06 PM   #190
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,277
Let's take a hard look at this bill. The operative text from section (b) of the bill (as sent to the Senate):
The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations, except as to eligibility to possess or carry, imposed by or under Federal or State law or the law of a political subdivision of a State, that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
Noting the underlined, let's look at the same text without that exception (the exception language goes to how the States allow its own citizens to be licensed and has no effect upon how the law will be handled with regards to non-residents):
The possession or carrying of a concealed hand-gun in a State under this section shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations .... that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State or political subdivision who are licensed by the State or political subdivision to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.
What is not in this text, is the prior language authorizing a non-resident licensee to operate as if he held that States least restrictive license. As I already explained, what is not in the text is the prior findings that accept the right to carry in public for self defense as part of the core right, as expressed in Heller (all of that language was stricken in an amendment - as a substitution - on Nov. 10th, just before the bill passed out of committee). That language was crucial in the operation of the bill.

As it stands, should this bill pass the Senate and be signed into law, any State legislature may pass what could be called a "general license" with any number of restrictions as opposed to a "special license" with many less restrictions.

This bill will harm many of the current cases we have going that seek to have the judiciary to declare that the right to carry, outside the home, for self defense is part of the core right.

Part of the amendment that was added, in the form of a complete substitution, was to have the GAO perform a study, within a years time. The study was to show whether or not the law was effective. That is, can the local police departments reliably get out of State information on permit holders. I can already tell you the results: The GAO will recommend that the Congress create a national database comprised of all State information on permit holders (much like a NICS database), so that local LEOs will have the information at their fingertips.

Not a complete registration of all gun owners, just those that have carry permits.

In sum then, with this bill:
  1. States may enact levels of carry permits.
    1. States may assign "visitor" carry to any of the levels of public carry enacted.
  2. The bill further entrenches the idea that public carry is a privilege.
    1. Current court cases that deal with carry as a right will be harmed.
    2. The bill provides the courts with a legislative "out" to find that carry is a privilege, not a right.
      1. The Illinois cases, Shepard and Moore will be rendered moot (right to carry outside the home).
      2. Benson will be rendered moot (restrictive licensing).
      3. Ezell may survive, but it will be much harder to win (ancillary rights).
      4. Enos will be rendered moot (MCDV).
      5. Peterson will be rendered moot (interstate travel).
      6. Peruta, Haynie, & Richards will not survive at the Circuit (AWB).
      7. Nordyke will be rendered moot (restricted places).
    3. It will be many more years before any case may come to the Supreme Court.
  3. With the GAO study in place, Congress will centralize a registry of permit holders.
  4. At some point, the Federal Legislature will begin to "regulate" the manner of obtaining permits (direct interference with State regulations).
I could go on, explaining how this bill will effect each and every case we are watching (not just the few I gave as examples, above). In general, by stripping all of the original language from the bill, the legislature has implicitly said that the right to carry in public, is not a right at all, but a mere privilege that can be regulated to any extent, or denied altogether.

This bill is now a Trojan Horse, and the Senate has yet to mark it up.

Those of you that are for this bill will not be phased in the least. You want what you want and you want it now. The hell with the consequences!

Bottom line. Should this bill become law, it will unravel both Heller and McDonald in the short term. Perhaps, in the long term as well.

Last edited by Al Norris; November 26, 2011 at 11:15 PM. Reason: Error Correction
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 11:15 PM   #191
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
Sorry, about following up on the healthcare issue from a prior poster, however, there are many examples of excesses of the Feds that historically shows that they will not give something without it having a cost.

Except in certain limited regions of the US, CCW reciprocity is not an issue for the majority of us. For my travels on the west coast, CA is the only place that is a problem. Unfortunately, it is also where my place of residence is at present. In such, CCW reciprocity bills by the Feds will add nothing to my 3 CCW permits from Utah, Nevada and Idaho. Yes, OR is not on my list at present, but a quick trip of a few hours and I can easily remedy that problem but I so seldom go to OR at present to justify that.

This bill will not change anything internally in any of the states, only reciprocity issues where you must adhere to each state's laws and regulations. That means that nothing will improve for my own situation of any meaningful benefit. I suspect that will be true for many other CCW holders at this time as well.

New England, NY, CA, HI are a long way from making any political changes in gun laws in these Democratic strong holds. However, the courts have forced changes even in these areas. Look at the map of CA for instance in the number of CCW friendly counties compared to 1 or 2 years ago.

I would really like some one to explain to me how this bill will enhance my CCW permits? We have had quite a bit of discussions about the bill, but little on how it will benefit. If there will be little benefit since you must adhere to all individual state laws, why is this bill worth the risk of Federal intervention and a power grab over state rights? What shall we gain that we can't do with a bit of patience and perseverance with the current course of affairs?
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 26, 2011, 11:42 PM   #192
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Al Norris' scholarship is astonishing. I frankly had not read the text of the bill as passed and referred to the Senate. Therefore, I was unaware that former Section 926D(c) providing for carry on the terms of a state's unrestricted license had been eliminated. I do note that the NRA and GOA were silent on this apparently critical omission.

Thanks for alerting us, Al.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 12:01 AM   #193
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
IV. At some point, the Federal Legislature will begin to "regulate" the manner of obtaining permits (direct interference with State regulations).
The former provision that stated "(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms." was eliminated.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 12:14 AM   #194
Alaska444
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 3, 2010
Posts: 1,231
I would further point out that under Federal law, purchasing guns is subject to the state of residence. While in Idaho, I can look, but not buy any long gun without sending it to a CA FFL dealer and then go through CA waiting period. The restrictive states will remain restrictive and perhaps even more so. The permissive states will remain that way as well but be trumped when those residents travel to the restrictive states.

This will not in anyway make it easy for anyone to carry in NY city even with a permit. It will only force NY City to engage in more restrictive laws to prevent out of state CCW permit holders from flooding NY City with unwanted carry.

Al's post makes it very evident that this will become a serious setback to the current 2A cases. I would hope folks don't go for a quick fix only to find out it was our own undoing.
Alaska444 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 07:23 AM   #195
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 724
If this bill is such a trojan horse and will undo many advances made, why the resistance from the antis? Surely they would see these same opportunities as do those who are pro gun but anti HR822 in this forum. Why has the NRA backed a bill that would undermine essentially everything they stand for??
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 08:43 AM   #196
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,930
The associated politics of reelection, hopefully. People here at TFL are concerned with nuts and bolts substance. Folks elsewhere have other needs/concerns. I think the official phrase is dog and pony show.

Do you think the President will sign it?
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; November 27, 2011 at 08:57 AM. Reason: effort towards non political content.
alloy is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 09:28 AM   #197
Rusty35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2011
Posts: 140
Quote:
alloy

The associated politics of reelection, hopefully. People here at TFL are concerned with nuts and bolts substance. Folks elsewhere have other needs/concerns. I think the official phrase is dog and pony show.

Do you think the President will sign it?
Which brings up another question,
What if he does sign it.
Does that mean its a good bill for gun owners?
Rusty35 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 09:54 AM   #198
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 724
If it undermines the 2nd amendment, and the President is anti gun, then he would be a fool not to, right? I have a hard time believing the NRA, is backing a bill that is so detrimental to their own cause that is so obvious to others.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 09:55 AM   #199
AirForceShooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2005
Location: Sarasota (sort of) Florida
Posts: 1,185
Hear a the proposed manedments by the Dems.

Do you think they won't try to add them when thay have a majority?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee’s (D-Texas) amendment to establish a national database of permit holders (defeated 284-139);
Rep. Jackson Lee’s amendment to require permit holders to notify law enforcement officials in other states of their intention to carry a firearm in those states (defeated 299-123);
Rep. Steve Cohen’s (D-Tenn.) amendment to exclude permit holders under 21 years of age (defeated 276-150);
Rep. Alcee Hastings’ (D-Fla.) amendment, intended to exclude permit holders whose states do not require permit applicants to apply in person (defeated 277-148);
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy’s (D-N.Y.) amendment to apply the bill only to states in which the state legislature votes to accept it (defeated 274-147);
Rep. Rob Woodall’s (R-Ga.) amendment to allow states to create their own agreements which would exempt them from the bill (defeated 283-140);
Rep. Hank Johnson’s (D-Ga.) amendment to apply the bill only to permit holders who were required to participate in a live-fire exercise to be eligible for their permits (defeated 281-144);
and,
Rep. David Cicilline’s (D-R.I.) amendment to create a patchwork of recognition (and resistance) by applying the bill only between states where the attorneys general, state police chiefs, and secretaries of state have affirmed that their states’ carry laws are similar (defeated 277-146).

This is what HR82 would open the door to

AFS
__________________
'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.
AirForceShooter is offline  
Old November 27, 2011, 10:06 AM   #200
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
guys, I just want to say that I have enjoyed this thread and discussion. I think this is just a powerful issue for me(and obviously others). I want you to all know I DO respect your opinions despite differences. I don't think it will be law, BUT I do believe in time a bill similar to this will pass. I am steadfast that it is a good thing and will be when it passes. I am not going to be able to change minds(or maybe I have just as some against it have done the same). It might not be the right time, but good things come to those who wait and it takes time and work to get things. I myself and having a hard time listening to some arguments here, and this thread is particular frustrating to me. oh well. I'm sortof seeing it like Icedog's last post.

And I don't think all the people for it are clueless and naive about the federal government. Do you?! States will have to adhere to the law when it passes. They will accept the law, and they will have no choice. If by some crazy nitch where they can work and wait to avoid it, basically nothing changes for the anti-state. My state will continue to be gun friendly. I can gurantee that as much as I can gurantee anything I guess. I think the frustration is because I know someday this will probably pass but that is by no means a certainty. I do know I would come back someday and admit my mistake if I was wrong & this law ended up being a bad thing when it passed. I do wonder how many people against it would have enough pride to swallow to do the same thing.


lastly,

airforce,

they try a lot of that stuff even without this bill passing.
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.17427 seconds with 8 queries