Blomberg Group to spend $25,00,000.00 fighting Concealed Carry

[Tinbucket]

http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/bloomberg...y/?cat_orig=us

Bloomberg is going to spend $25,000,000.00 fighting to forbid us our Second Amendment Right.
Since some States are safe in their corner already we can expect more than a million possibly two million in the other states, and perhaps more, where we have Legislators fighting for us.
Bloomberg was successful again this year in Tn.
Money is Free Speech. Money is Political Speech and we all know who speaks the loudest to their Legislators gets the vote, way too many times.
In Tn Open Carry Without a Permit was killed in Civil Justice Committee by a voice vote. It was decided to have a Voice Vote so no one would be linked to killing HB40.
The Governor, who promised in his Election Campaign to sign Constitutional Carry if it got to his desk, kept it from getting to his desk every year.
This year again he sent his Lobbyist to the Civil Justice Committee to tell them he opposed it. What reward would be with held if they didn't support their Governor? well......
Our new Representative before he could get his feet wet had a check from Bloomberg. He sent it back. Bravo!
How do we counter Bloomberg?

[jdc1244]

Blombeer g Group to spend $25,00,000.00 fighting Concealed Carry

Wrong.

The Group will work to oppose concealed carry reciprocity as Federal law, having nothing to do with the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...d-carry-237056

Bloomberg is going to spend $25,000,000.00 fighting to forbid us our Second Amendment Right.

Also wrong.

If reciprocity legislation fails to become law, it will have no adverse effect on state laws authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms.

Opposing concealed carry reciprocity does not ‘forbid’ anyone his Second Amendment rights.

Indeed, it’s this sort of misleading demagoguery and hyperbole which serves only to undermine the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

[lefteye]

The Group will work to oppose concealed carry reciprocity as Federal law, having nothing to do with the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms.

Your statement is a non sequitur. Opposing concealed carry reciprocity DOES have something to do with the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms. The absence of federal law establishing nation wide reciprocity obviously has an impact on the rights of citizens to carry concealed firearms in: (1) states other than the state or states for which they have a carry permit and (2) states which do not have reciprocity with a state or states for which they have a carry permit. Nationwide reciprocity is OBVIOUSLY relevant to the right to carry concealed firearms.

Opposing concealed carry reciprocity does not ‘forbid’ anyone his Second Amendment rights.

"Opposing" does not forbid any right, but the absence of reciprocity may prohibit carry in any state that requires a carry permit and denies reciprocity to one or more other state carry permits.

[Tinbucket]

I misread it. Bare arms. Now I understand.

[44 AMP]

Opposing concealed carry reciprocity DOES have something to do with the right of citizens to carry concealed firearms.

This assumes citizens have the RIGHT to carry CONCEALED arms. This is something that has not been established in law. In fact the argument can easily be made that citizens do not have a right to concealed carry. RIGHTS do not require permits and licenses.

As I understand it, until/unless the High Court produces a specific ruling, our right to bear arms is satisfied by EITHER open or concealed carry. So, if a state allows open carry, as a constitutional right, it need not allow concealed carry as a right, or even, at all.

If I've got that wrong, please, enlighten me.

Trump made the statement "it ought to be like driver's licenses". And on that I agree, it ought to be.

But, it isn't.

and, it never has been.

[lefteye]

Iowa allows carry - open or concealed. Some states allow open and/or concealed carry - some without government issued permits (I think). Of course we have not yet had a Supreme Court decision holding either concealed or open carry must be permitted (unless I'm mistaken). So far - according to Heller - it is OK to own a firearm. You may even be allowed to touch it.

I agree it ought to be like a driver's license (subject to justified restrictions similar to those applicable to a driver's license.)

[KyJim]

Also keep in mind that some gun owners don't want a federal reciprocity statute because it puts the feds in the field of regulating concealed carry. That could set a precedent of a complete federal statutory ban on concealed carry nationwide. I understand why those living in California and a few other places would want federal reciprocity but it is potentially a two-edged sword.

[Tom Servo]

Iowa allows carry - open or concealed.

That's just it--they allow it. That isn't how rights work, or at least the way they're meant to work.

I understand why those living in California and a few other places would want federal reciprocity but it is potentially a two-edged sword

I've long argued under a similar mentality. As the proposal winds through the House and Senate, expect opponents to do all they can to hobble it. They will put wide-ranging, ambiguously-defined exceptions in there. New York, Maryland, Connecticut, and California will fight it tooth and nail, and if they can't kill it, they'll make sure to poison it to the point it's useless.

The only way to really settle this would be through the courts, and we haven't had the best of luck there. Heller was a narrow 5-4 result, and that was just the idea that we have the "right" to own a single handgun, subject to registration and local restrictions on type.

Getting the court to articulate a right to concealed carry is going to be nearly impossible at this point. We've got a century and a half of unchallenged laws banning concealed carry as precedent.

I'd love to see 50-state reciprocity, but I just don't see how we can get there without it being a total mess.

[Don P]

Living here in FLA, I don't see the state going permit-less. Last report was there are 1.7+ million permit holders. Lets do some simple math, 1.7 Million X $60 for first time applicants and $ 50 for renewals. First time permits have the state getting $102,000,000 and in renewals,$85,000,000. I know this is spread out over time BUT is a constant source of revenue for the state. Would I like to see permit-less CCW , yes. Would I like to see nation wide CCW, yes. I doubt anyone posting on this forum will ever live long enough to see that happen. just my .02 worth.

[5whiskey]

I'd love to see 50-state reciprocity, but I just don't see how we can get there without it being a total mess.

I hold this belief as well. It would be simple enough to basically word it off of LEOSA, but the problem is a number of states will try their best to reject this. Yeah, it could be passed federally and the states could "eat it," but as it stands it would not survive a Senate filibuster. Maybe some senate seats turn over in the mid-term and it pass through then, but I'm not holding my breath. The R's would need to pick up 8 seats unless there are a couple of ardently (not half-hearted) pro-gun Democrats. Given the toxic partisanship that exists in politics today, apparently you can't be a legislator and a Democrat who votes pro-gun or a Republican who votes pro-environment... no one seems to have the ability to think for themselves and instead do what their party demands. So... I'm not holding my breath for any kind of aisle crossing from either party, but especially Democrats who feel that they have a "resist at all costs" mandate right now.

Indeed, it’s this sort of misleading demagoguery and hyperbole which serves only to undermine the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

I agree that some of the material from the Pro-2A side seems to sensationalize issues and turn every last regulation into "they're coming for your guns!" Like you, I believe some of this is an overreaction and does not help our cause a lot of the time. In this case, 25 mil is being donated and it is being donated to hinder our ability to travel while CCW. Never mind that ability is already hindered and some of our legislators are actually trying to fix it, nonetheless it is money earmarked to fight against us and against something that honestly should be a "Right." I don't think the OP sensationalized this too hard.

[Loosedhorse]

This assumes citizens have the RIGHT to carry CONCEALED arms.

No, not really. The Ninth Circuit made the same error in Peruta.

First, we know that citizens of the US have a right to carry arms. That is a national right.

Next, we know that there are states that do not allow their citizens that right, such as CA. The panel decision in Peruta reasoned well that CA's laws "prevent the vast majority of responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes," and therefore "impermissibly infringe[] on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense."

The en banc court then oddly stated they could uphold the essential concealed carry ban (conditioning concealed carry on an arbitrary, undefined "good cause" requirement), saying that such a ban is completely acceptable as it does not ban open carry...and yet never mentioning that since open carry is also banned in CA, the effect of both laws together is to violate the 2nd Amendment.

Get that? The 9th has ruled that the fact that BOTH the "good cause" requirement for CC together with the ban on OC violate the 2nd Amendment is completely acceptable, since neither law individually and by itself would do that. Violating the 2nd Amendment is fine, so long as it is done via two laws, instead of just one.


To the extent that state laws also prevent the vast majority of visiting residents from other states who are responsible, law-abiding citizens from carrying in public for lawful self-defense purposes, that is also an infringement of the 2nd Amendment right.

True, a law saying open carry is now permissible in all 50 states would solve that problem. And national concealed carry reciprocity would go a long way toward solving it.

However, saying that concealed carry is not protected by the 2nd Amendment is, first, undecided; and second, it is moot anywhere that open carry is similarly restricted. Carry of some type MUST be permitted to the vast majority of visiting residents from other states who are responsible, law-abiding citizens, or the 2nd Amendment is violated.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by KyJim

I understand why those living in California and a few other places would want federal reciprocity but it is potentially a two-edged sword.

I suspect a lot of pro-gun people living in California and areas with similar gun laws want Federal reciprocity more as a way to get better gun laws for their own area than being able to carry in other states.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by KyJim

I understand why those living in California and a few other places would want federal reciprocity but it is potentially a two-edged sword.

Perhaps, but I believe that's KyJim's point still stands.

Pro-gun people in anti-gun states may like the idea, but those anti-gun states are going to pull out all stops to prevent CCW reciprocity by poisoning the legislation and/or attacking it in the courts.

Those CA residents hoping for AZ-style carry laws to be imposed by the Feds are probably going to be bitterly disappointed in the end, and my concern is that the fallout could hurt carry nationwide.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by carguychris

Those CA residents hoping for AZ-style carry laws to be imposed by the Feds are probably going to be bitterly disappointed in the end, and my concern is that the fallout could hurt carry nationwide.

I doubt that many people in gun law states like California think there will be near unlimited gun freedoms with national reciprocity. I think the attitude is more along the lines that since it can't get any worse, it can only get better. They are probably right but for that to come around, you will have to most likely make it worse for the 40 other states by increasing their standards. In theory, national reciprocity could be used as a vehicle for national gun control.

[44 AMP]

Personally I think that the Bloombergers are wasting their money. Now, I sure do want these folks to waste their money, but these folks have plenty of money to waste, so its not like its something that hurts them.

In this case I think they are wasting their money because they simply don't need to spend it to get the result that that want. Yes, I'd much rather see their money go to waste because they spent it and didn't get the result they wanted, but I don't see that happening in this case, for the foreseeable future.

There are a great many problems with a national carry law, and concealed carry further complicates the issue.

#1 all the people who don't want anyone but "approved" people (police & licensed private secturity) carrying guns are going to oppose it.

#2 even strong gun rights supporters (such as myself) oppose it. Because no solution so far proposed doesn't violate someone's rights and in some cases, existing law.

We have Federal law (and interpretations of law) that require states to recognize acts, permits and licenses issued by other states. Marriage & driver's licenses are the common examples. However, written in the laws is that fact (some might say loophole) allowing states to only recognize other states licenses under the framework of law, including the state laws. This gives each state the "right" to only recognize other states licenses only if they choose to do so (because it fits with their existing state laws). AND, if a state does recognize another states permit as valid, one may only carry in accordance with that state's laws. ALL of them.

Driver's licenses etc have a pretty uniform standard, there is virtually no variation from state to state. So each state recognizing the others drivers licenses was pretty much automatic, and a long established fact these days. Gun laws have extreme variations between states, and states have, historically and legally, each determined their own course regarding recognition of other states firearm licenses.

States rights.

Any top down all must obey Federal law on firearms treads on the issue of states rights, as well as individual rights.

Much as any of us might feel that the restrictive laws of some states are wrong, those states have a right to have those laws, under our legal system.

The people living there approved them, (rightly or wrongly is just our opinion), they are the law. Until/unless the state changes their laws (through the existing system) they stand.

Should they be "just like driver's licenses"? I think so, but its not a perfect analogy. Every state requires a driver's license. Some states do not require any state license to carry. So, how do you square that? Restrictive states are not going to give you a free pass simply because your home state does.

We feel restrictive states are idiots for being restrictive. They feel we are idiots if we are not as restrictive as they are. EGO plays a part in this, both individual and institutional. Don't think it doesn't.

One of the risks in a Federal rule forcing states compliance stems from what ever that Federal rule actually is. First off, in order to recognize a permit from anywhere, there has to be a permit to recognize. So, those states that do not require a permit could be forced into having to issue one to comply.

Most of us would see that as a net loss for gun rights. A BIG one.

The Fed has the power to force states to comply. Winning the last (and hopefully only) Civil War made that a fact. However we are all better off when states are convinced to change, rather than being forced to change.

Remember that the same legal authority to say "you must" is ALSO the legal authority to say "thou shalt not!", so these matters are complex, and must be approached carefully and not made law because of a "good sound byte".

I agree that our right to self defense doesn't end when we cross a state line. But it does legally change. Absolutely there is a huge amount of improvement that could be made in the present system. I just doubt a federal law is the best way to go about it. It might be the easiest way, it might be the only practical way these days, but its not the right way, as I see it.

[Loosedhorse]

its not the right way, as I see it.

I wouldn't try to change your perspective. Yours well may be correct.

Still, doing things "the right way" may be passé in government. Great, qualified judges shouldn't be affirmed by nuclear option--that's not the right way. Changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples--if it is to be done at all--should be done by the legislature, not by the courts.

So maybe a federal law isn't the right way to restore 2nd Amendment rights, but it'll do till the right way gets here.

[Chris_B]

What bugs me is that a privilege such as a driver's license is recognized in all 50, but a right is curtailed when a state sees fit.

Now, I am a staunch supporter of States' rights, but the logic is what I have issue with. Privilege is allowed, but it could be argued that a right is not.

It's an imperfect system and laws surround all rights, true. But I worry about precedent re: constitutional law. I firmly believe the table can't stand properly when you shorten a couple legs. It's a frustrating situation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

One thing the Bloomberg group is pushing is to facilitate business bans and increase the number of banned locations.

This is a reminder for the folks who push the 'property rights' argument for forbidding business bans or laws making businesses responsible if you cannot carry. There is a proposal in TX to return to the easy signs to ban carry as compared to the current set.

So if you like 'property rights' of a business that chooses to be open to the public - you also like a strategy to make concealed carry useless.

Don't tell me that you will go elsewhere as major locales that you need for a normal life will ban carry.

[ShootistPRS]

The laws regarding private property and public access private property are very different. Just as a store can't ban a section of the population for color, creed, or gender identification they should not be able to ban those who can lawfully carry a concealed weapon. In Washington a "no guns" sign in a shop holds no legal meaning. You can't be prosecuted for carrying a gun into a shop that posts a sign. If your gun is noticed you can be asked to leave at which point you must legally comply. It is then a question of an individual being ejected which can be prosecuted as trespass if you don't leave.

Different states have different laws. In Oregon you can't enter a shop that displays a "no guns" sign. You can carry into a bar, which is not legal in Washington. You need to know and follow your local laws.

[Evan Thomas]

Just as a store can't ban a section of the population for color, creed, or gender identification they should not be able to ban those who can lawfully carry a concealed weapon.

It doesn't work that way. No state allows bans of those who can carry a concealed weapon; the bans affect those who do carry one. Put another way, the ban is on the weapon, not the person. A person can decide at any time whether or not to carry a weapon. This isn't the case with one's race, religion, or gender ("identification" is redundant here), and that's why concealed weapons carriers will never be a protected class, nor should they be.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While declaring concealed carriers a protected class may not be the appropriate strategy, I still feel that not allowing public businesses to ban carry is the way to go. The ability to protect yourself is more important than property rights once you decided to be a public business.

Folks may disagree as you want to have your castle but if you open to the public, you give that total control up. Also, property bans (once again) are the strategy to negate the utility of concealed carry. So pragmatically, property folks screw themselves. The unintended consequence are clear to me.

[JoeSixpack]

Nationwide reciprocity would be great, But unlike traffic laws which are about 95% uniform across the country gun and CC laws vary wildly even among neighboring states.

A lot of states would probably opposite it due to the requirements to acquire a license can vary from very easy to near impossible.

While it would be nice I think we just need to push for constitutional carry state to state, there will be some hold outs but we can probably cover a good 75% of the country this way it will just take a lot longer than passing 1 federal law.

The end result is superior than reciprocity, does anyone think states like CA or NY would stand idle for a federal law? those are lost causes anyway.

[DT Guy]

Evan Thomas wrote:

It doesn't work that way. No state allows bans of those who can carry a concealed weapon; the bans affect those who do carry one. Put another way, the ban is on the weapon, not the person. A person can decide at any time whether or not to carry a weapon. This isn't the case with one's race, religion, or gender ("identification" is redundant here), and that's why concealed weapons carriers will never be a protected class, nor should they be.

If I have a 'fundamental right' to carry a firearm to defend myself, allowing my person, but not my weapon, to enter your store means that to shop at that place I must forfeit a 'fundamental right'; would the courts hold that it's alright to allow a black person to enter a store, so long as he wore a hat? Or to allow a Jewish person to enter so long as they did NOT wear a yarmulke?

How can you separate a physical person from the fundamental right that person carries by simple right of their existence? And does allowing the physical person to enter, but only after surrendering fundamental rights, actually constitute a 'right to enter'?


Larry

[2damnold4this]

It looks like at least some of that money is for use in influencing state legislatures. From the Politico link:

Everytown for Gun Safety, founded and funded by the billionaire former New York City mayor, is hiring several new top staffers and turning much of its attention to state legislatures

[JoeSixpack]

I dunno, I gotta to with Evan here..

I do believe shop owners should have the right to refuse entry to anyone carrying a gun, it's their business and their property and ultimately they should have say on what comes and goes.

I would not want to take that control from them.
On the other hand I'd be open to making them liable if they ban weapons but do not have any security to enforce said ban.