The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old September 28, 2017, 01:15 PM   #51
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,157
Quote:
I'm thinking long game , how do you see the 2nd amendment in 20 years . I can tell you from living in CA for my entire life . 25 years ago the gun culture here was quite different then it is now . We've been giving 2" and taking back 1" year after year and it has dug a hole so deep we are not likely to get out of it with out a huge event from the federal government . If we can't get that now . I fear the country may never be able to stop the decline of the 2nd amendment as the ideologies of the edges close in on the rest of the country .
As John, I see your point but I don't think it's accurate in every way. CA does lead the nation toward liberal trends in many ways... but in other ways it does not. Specifically with firearms (also as John said), I feel that it is easier than ever before to CCH in my state. There is real discussion about abolishing our current pistol permitting system (it's a left over Jim Crow law anyway, IMO). And... the same has actually been observed nationwide. 20 years ago we had to deal with the national AWB (thank God for the sunset provision). Now, we don't. 20 years ago the issue of the 2A being an individual right had not been settled by SCOTUS... now it has been recognized as a federal and incorporated right. So, like it or not, CA can desire to ban firearms altogether all they want, but they can not. It will not work. We have won some very real victories for gun rights over the past 20 years, let's not forget or overlook that.

I would like to see reciprocity happen but I don't seeing it's implementation without a net loss.
5whiskey is offline  
Old September 28, 2017, 07:18 PM   #52
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,063
Zuik makes some excellent points in regards to preemption, which was not on my mind when I wrote my last post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FITASC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
With that said, I wouldn't object to a separate federal CCL, valid in all states,
And what if the Fed version had more restrictions than your own state? Which would rule?
That question only comes into play if state and federal law conflict with each other. There's not necessarily a conflict between a more-restrictive federal CCL and a more-permissive state one. We wouldn't know if there was until we'd analyzed the language involved. As I noted above, I wasn't thinking about preemption when I last wrote. I was thinking about a Federal CCL that one could get in addition to, or as an alternative to, one's state CCL, if one so desired.

My apologies to everyone if I was a bit muddled and confusing.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 29, 2017, 12:38 PM   #53
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
Quote:
Look at Ohio , the state is red but Cincinnati is blue blue blue and just about controls the whole state .
First I've heard of that one. Less than 5% of population and declining. Now, Columbus which is approaching ten, on the rise, and is the capitol sure seems to get what it wants.
Besides our blues are redder than most of your reds
Once we get Brown out and a pro-gun democrat to replace we will be set.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old September 29, 2017, 01:13 PM   #54
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
Besides our blues are redder than most of your reds
I could not agree more and I'm one on those blue-ish red people . The funny and or sad thing is if you talk to a lot of the blues here in CA they would say I'm extremely red .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old September 29, 2017, 01:31 PM   #55
CalmerThanYou
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2017
Posts: 323
Any regulation overseen at the federal level is going to become a problem. Not exactly the same, but having spent my career in the real estate appraisal business, I can tell you as fact that when the Federal powers decide on something it is unstoppable and seldom a positive factor.
CalmerThanYou is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 02:40 AM   #56
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 437
Nattering nabobs of negativism.

I remember when the wise and knowledgeable told me:

There will never be a supreme court decision upholding the 2nd as an individual right. (Heller)

Concealed carry laws will never pass in most states (virtually every state)

Concealed carry laws are bad as they license a right and will prevent passage of a clean unlicensed right to carry. (More and more states after seeing shall issue concealed carry work have started to pass unlicensed carry)

It's a fools errand to even defend "assault weapons" - we need to cut our losses and not seem unreasonable by trying to defend them. (Assault weapon ban expires and is not renewed or replaced and so called assault weapons become single most popular rifle in US)

It's crazy to think the NFA can be modified or the restrictions on silencers removed. Personally told I was crazy more than a decade ago for saying the the way to get it lifted was to attack it over health concerns and hearing loss. (Now solid movement to get it taken off NFA)

National reciprocity it bad or dead - yeah heard that one too.
mack59 is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 03:02 AM   #57
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,803
Mack , I think what you describe is likely a direct result of all the anti gun laws and proposals that where being past or floated as possibilities . I believe this has been a big feed back loop and thank goodness it happened and many voted to insure it could happen .

We keep seeing this happen with many different proposals the Federal government tries to implement . The feds say we want to do this and the states say NO we will not help you implement that , in fact we are going to write laws the fight against that very thing . We see that with gun control , immigration , recreational drugs to name a few . I'm not that old but likely well past the half way point of my life and I don't remember a time where the states were openly fighting the feds on so many fronts .

I'm still undecided if this is a good thing or a bad thing .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 06:56 AM   #58
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,998
I've stated it before getting the Feds involved with nation wide carry is a disaster waiting to happen. Examples, VA, IRS, Obama Care, and the list goes on. For me the government has way to much control over my every day life and the last thing I want to do is give those 534 idiots any more control over me. This is a can of worms that needs to stay sealed shut. My view is if you live where the gun laws suck, if possible move. If that is not an option do your best to get others involved and petition your congressional leaders to make changes.
Remember, its supposed to be a country where the government is in fear of the people and not the people fearing the government.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA NROI Range Officer,
ICORE Range Officer,
,MAG 40 Graduate
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 07:32 AM   #59
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 5,145
The Federal government plan is a one-size-fits-all (that fits no-one), will be filled with pork projects unrelated to the subject matter at hand, will have either not enough funding or drastic cost overruns and will not accomplish what it was originally intended to do - as has EVERY Federal social program since FDR. We need LESS of their intrusion, not more.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old October 2, 2017, 10:25 AM   #60
brian33x51
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2005
Location: Denver area
Posts: 194
The bill of rights is to protect US (the people) from THEM (the federal government). Based on the 10th amendment I can pretty clearly understand how more regulation from the government is a bad thing.

While having national reciprocity is theoretically a good thing, I don't see how it works without the federal government itself establishing guidelines for concealed carry which is clearly a violation of both the 10th and 2nd amendments. We need lots and lots and lots of laws stricken from the books, not more laws added to them.
brian33x51 is offline  
Old October 3, 2017, 11:29 PM   #61
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,970
Unless you keep it stupidly simple, "States will recognize carry permits issued by other states as if it was issued by that state," you'll get a lot of unintended consequences...

As always, the devil is in the details.
raimius is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 09:03 AM   #62
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,584
It really doesn't matter how simply it is put.
Some states simply don't believe you should be carrying a gun. It doesn't matter to them that self defense is a right because they don't even allow you to openly carry in public. Why would they want you to have a gun they can't see?
I don't believe even a unanimous decision by the supreme court would get the laws changed in states like New York and California.
It all comes down to power. Armed citizens are more difficult to control and that reduces the power they have over the citizens.
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old October 4, 2017, 06:49 PM   #63
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,970
If they lose enough lawsuits, and get called out for passing laws the courts already struck down...
raimius is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 12:30 AM   #64
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
At this point, I don't think anything that expands gun rights will make it through Congress to become law in the foreseeable future.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 01:39 AM   #65
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 4,803
Quote:
At this point, I don't think anything that expands gun rights will make it through Congress to become law in the foreseeable future.
Agreed , The ban on the slide fire stock will be signed into law and both side will then slink back to there protective corners not wanting to rock the boat any more . The pro gun groups should know getting anything passed anytime soon is not going to happen and the anti's in red states want to be reelected in 2018 so they won't press anything more then the ban on slide fire stocks .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive !

I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again .
Metal god is offline  
Old October 5, 2017, 06:54 PM   #66
johnwilliamson062
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,996
Quote:
If they lose enough lawsuits, and get called out for passing laws the courts already struck down...
They don't pay the legal bills, we do. There is basically no criminal charge for passing laws in contempt. It just drags on and drains un-believeable resources in court cases. My first time around after several years and draining the coffers my organization won. The state then changed the law from 5 to 4.9 and we were faced with the whole process again.
Look at how long the Heller series of cases has taken in DC and it still hasn't amounted to general access.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old November 17, 2017, 12:23 PM   #67
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 254
From Senator Feinstein:

Thank you for contacting me to share your support for the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017” (S. 446). I appreciate the time you took to write, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

On February 27, 2017, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017”. While I understand that you support this legislation, I am concerned it would allow an individual to carry his or her weapon into California even if they didn’t meet the safety requirements needed in our state. In so doing, this legislation would enable the concealed carry laws of one state to nullify the laws of other states which have stronger safety restrictions on concealed carry permits.

It is my belief that concealed weapons laws that may work in rural areas may not be suitable in urban areas. What is good for Alaska or Wyoming may not be good for California or New York. The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit. For example, it would force California to recognize concealed carry permits issued by the State of Alabama, which does not require an applicant to undergo training to safely operate a firearm. Therefore, I strongly oppose concealed weapons license reciprocity.

Similarly, I am concerned that concealed carry reciprocity puts law enforcement personnel in potentially dangerous positions. California sets sensible limits for those who wish to obtain a concealed weapon permit. While felons are excluded from obtaining a concealed carry permit in any state, California’s rules also disqualify individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor and those who are subject to a temporary restraining order from obtaining a concealed carry permit. California also requires all applicants to undergo safety training. California law enforcement officials should not be put in the compromising position of determining whether an out-of-state concealed carry permit is valid. Additionally, out-of-state permit holders should not be given wider latitude to carry concealed guns compared to California permit holders. As a result, I oppose any legislation that would interfere with California’s ability to enforce these standards.

While we must respectfully agree to disagree on this issue, knowing your views is important to me and I appreciate hearing your perspective. Should you have any other questions or comments, please call my Washington office at (202) 224-3841 or visit my website at feinstein.senate.gov. You can also follow me online at YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, and you can sign up for my email newsletter at feinstein.senate.gov/newsletter.

Best regards.

Sincerely yours,


Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old November 17, 2017, 05:37 PM   #68
danco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Reno, NV
Posts: 186
Quote:
"The problem with a federal policy mandating concealed carry reciprocity is that it would usurp the right of states to grant concealed weapons licenses in the manner, and to those individuals, that they see fit."
State's Rights.

And yet, she has no problem with banning "assault weapons" and "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" at the federal level.

Sigh...
danco is offline  
Old November 17, 2017, 07:54 PM   #69
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 20,345
Quote:
And yet, she has no problem with banning "assault weapons" and "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices" at the federal level.
Probably because her "sensible state" already bans such evil things, and that it would be a good, sensible idea if the rest of the country did as well.

I never held any hope for a National Reciprocity concealed carry. It simply will never happen, though it ought to. Yes, it ought to be recognized, just like driver's licenses, but it's not. Its a gun law. Every state WANTS to recognize other states driver's licenses, and marriage licenses. They (rightly) see that as bringing people, and their money, into their state.

With a CCW permit, its totally different, first off because by the numbers, CCW is almost insignificant number of people, compared to drivers licenses, etc.

Second, some states (meaning the administrations governing them) don't see recognizing other states permits as a benefit, they see it as a risk to their state.

The response from Sen Feinstein clearly shows the attitude, they don't want to recognize permits from any place that does not have the same issue requirements as their state does.

And, the law allows for this. While the law generally requires "full faith and credit" recognizing the acts of other states, there is, in the law specific language allowing for exceptions.

IT is, under the law, a State's right to be as pigheaded and stupid about anything the people living there want. And make no mistake, in the restrictive states, enough of the people want that, or simply don't care about it, to allow, or even keep the state govt on that path.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 17, 2017, 09:37 PM   #70
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,922
The problem with Senator Feinstein's problem is that pesky Second Amendment. The stuffy old, one-sentence amendment that says something about a "right" (whatever that is) to keep and bear arms.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 17, 2017, 11:47 PM   #71
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
Well, isn't part of the current front in the battle over gun rights the issue of determining how far "and bear arms" extends outside of the home?
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 18, 2017, 11:59 AM   #72
ShootistPRS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,584
Sure it's just like free speech. You can exercise free speech as long as you are in your home but never outside your home. Isn't it the same for all rights? (sarcasm now off)
ShootistPRS is offline  
Old November 18, 2017, 12:53 PM   #73
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 12,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfScubaDiver
Well, isn't part of the current front in the battle over gun rights the issue of determining how far "and bear arms" extends outside of the home?
Yes -- but if we had a Supreme Court that had any gumption AND actually followed the Constitution, this would be a non-issue.

What does the Second Amendment say? Do the words "inside the home" or "outide the home" appear anywhere in the 2A? Answer: No.

What has happened is that the Heller case both helped us and kneecapped us. It's important to remember what the question was in Heller. The case was in Washington, DC. The District of Columbia had a law prohibiting the keeping of a loaded, functional firearm within one's own residence. The plaintiffs (of whom Dick Heller was the only one still involved when it reached the Supreme Court, which is why the case now bears his name) had sued specifically to overturn this restriction. He didn't ask about carrying on the street -- he asked to be allowed to keep a loaded, functional firearm in his residence.

And the Supreme Court decided that, contrary to what the anti-gun forces had been saying ever since Miller, the 2A DID guarantee an individual right. Since the question before the court was within the home, that's the question they answered. But the 2A doesn't guarantee two separate rights, one to "keep" arms and a second, unrelated right to "bear" arms. That would have necessitated using the word "right" in its plural form. What the 2A addresses is "the right" (note -- singular) to keep [b]and bear[/i] arms.

There is some language in Heller about "in the home," but it's there because that's what the whole case was about. It doesn't mean that the 2A applies only within the home. What I believe Justice Scalia meant with his regrettable reference to "other presumptively lawful regulations" was basically "We know there are other laws on the books, they are not the subject of today's case, so we're not talking about them."

The bottom line is that the 2A guarantees a "right" to keep and bear arms. The Heller case finally determined that this is an individual right -- we don't have to be in the National Guard to keep and bear arms. McDonald then established that the 2A does apply to the states as well as to the federal government. And that's where Feinstein's argument falls apart. we DO have a constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms, and that right shall not is not supposed to be infringed. Any regulation is an "infringement," and California's maze of draconian anti-gun laws effectively prohibit the bearing of arms to most people in most of the parts of California where one most needs to carry. National reciprocity would force California closer to observance of the Constitution, and that's not what they want.

So ... you are correct in that much of the debate today is over whether or not the 2A applies outside the home. It's a phony question, for the reasons I've laid out above.

The other front in the debate today is what kinds of "arms" are protected by the 2A. The anti-gun types want to ban anything that looks remotely like a military firearm. Yet the sense of the 2A is that the People should be allowed to bear the same arms as the military. Heller makes reference to guns in popular use (or similar language -- I didn't look it up). The AR-15 is unquestionably one of the THE most popular firearms types in use in the United States today. It is NOT an M16 or an M4, so it is not a "military" or "military type" firearm -- it doesn't have selective fire. Period. In WW1 the United States used the 1903 Springfield rifle. That was a military firearm. It was built by the official, U.S. government arms factory, Springfield Armory. To be logical, then, the anti-gun types should be claiming that any bolt action, centerfire rifle is a "military type" firearm with no legitimate civilian use, and should therefore be banned.

(Yeah, I know -- don't give them any ideas.) You can see how that argument just doesn't make sense. Cosmetic features don't determine what a gun is for. The Ruger Mini-14 fires the same cartridge as the AR-15, and has a detachable magazine. But it doesn't have a pistol grip, so it doesn't look all scary-like and "military." Will a .223 round from a Mini-14 kill you just as dead as a .223 round from an AR-15? Probably. So they're just playing their usual game. Today they're after easily identifiable cosmetic features. Once they ban AR-15 pattern rifles, then they'll come back for semi-auto, centerfire rifles in general. Then they'll come after bolt-action centerfires, and after that ...
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 18, 2017, 02:56 PM   #74
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
Aguila, from what I've read on the subject, which admittedly isn't very extensive, you have provided one side of the argument. Even if the courts view "keep and bear" as two separate issues to address, and they determine it as separate or one in terms of rights, I don't know that it would make a difference in a court challenge against national reciprocity. I'm in favor of national reciprocity, but I'm also in favor of states determining their own training requirements for permit holders. So, it gets too complicated for a simple guy like me to decide who's right and who's wrong. I will say that it appears to me that Feinstein is taking an argument often used in other political issues and throwing it in the face of those in favor of reciprocity. I mean, her name certainly doesn't pop into my mind when I think about states rights. lol
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old November 18, 2017, 04:21 PM   #75
jdc1244
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 509
Quote:
Any regulation overseen at the federal level is going to become a problem. Not exactly the same, but having spent my career in the real estate appraisal business, I can tell you as fact that when the Federal powers decide on something it is unstoppable and seldom a positive factor.
The proposed legislation has nothing to do with ‘Federal regulation’ or ‘oversight.’ It seeks only to render concealed carry permits to function more like driver’s licenses.

This also isn’t a states’ rights issue, given the fact national reciprocity would be devoid of Federal regulatory provisions.

Your Florida concealed weapon license would be valid in New York when visiting or traveling through New York.

If you become a resident of New York, however, you must surrender your Florida license and obtain a New York permit pursuant to New York law.

That’s why the ‘argument’ that national reciprocity would ‘undermine’ the more restrictive concealed carry requirements of some states isn’t valid, just as the states’ rights ‘argument’ isn’t valid.
jdc1244 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 08:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11184 seconds with 8 queries