Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old 10-18-2018, 7:06 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dustoff31 View Post
Nobody in there right mind would. Which is one reason a federal CCW will never happen.

In fact, I seriously doubt that federal CCW reciprocity will ever happen.
A Federal CCW could be done in such a way that it would not make states with laws less strict than the Federal laws have to be overturned. But you are right in than a federal CCW will probably never happen and the main reason is more people like states rights than gun rights.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 10-18-2018, 8:55 PM
socal m1 shooter's Avatar
socal m1 shooter socal m1 shooter is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: North OC
Posts: 21
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This has some canny thoughts on the topic.

I don't know how long it will take to play out, but blue states (particularly CA and IL) are facing a looming pension crisis which will eventually result in fewer LEOs being hired. The fit hasn't hit the shan just yet, but here in CA we are already seeing signs here and there, local municipalities who can't afford to maintain their roads, or (like Yorba Linda) can no longer afford the level of police services they had become accustomed to. This won't get better over time, and may be a factor in changing public opinion regarding guns.
__________________
Sending hot brass your way
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:21 AM
mit31 mit31 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 218
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Let me summarize your statement below and hopefully you will see how it makes no sense:

1. Establish federal ccw, with standard requirements that all states must follow. This would eliminate the current confusion regarding some states not recognizing others permits which could result in people not being able to ccw in certain areas, or people being prosecuted because they may have driven through a less ccw friendly state.

2. Allow any state that wants to, to also have its own less-stringent CCW, that other states may not recognize, creating confusion and likely prosecution of people that have valid state ccw but travel to a state that does not recognize it.

How is #2 any different than today? As soon as that person crosses the state border they could be arrested, unless they ALSO have the federal CCW. We would be right back where we started... pissed that people with valid CCW are getting arrested for doing nothing but crossing a state line.

There can only be ONE CCW if we do a federal one. That is the entire point of a federal standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
Makes perfect sense to me, let's say you have a Federal CCW permit that requires a eight hour safety class to receive the permit. States would still be free to require a six hour class for carry by their residents in their state or for that matter any length of class they want. But the bottom line would be no state would be able to refuse to honor the Federal CCW for any reason or in any manner.

I doubt states will bother any longer making laws that would be more strict than the Federal law since they would not be enforceable against anyone with a Federal CCW.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 10-19-2018, 12:01 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mit31 View Post
Let me summarize your statement below and hopefully you will see how it makes no sense:

1. Establish federal ccw, with standard requirements that all states must follow. This would eliminate the current confusion regarding some states not recognizing others permits which could result in people not being able to ccw in certain areas, or people being prosecuted because they may have driven through a less ccw friendly state.

2. Allow any state that wants to, to also have its own less-stringent CCW, that other states may not recognize, creating confusion and likely prosecution of people that have valid state ccw but travel to a state that does not recognize it.

How is #2 any different than today? As soon as that person crosses the state border they could be arrested, unless they ALSO have the federal CCW. We would be right back where we started... pissed that people with valid CCW are getting arrested for doing nothing but crossing a state line.

There can only be ONE CCW if we do a federal one. That is the entire point of a federal standard.
You are trying to make things more complicated than need be, point is this if you have a Federal CCW you are good to go anywhere in the USA simple . If you dont you would be subject to local laws the same as things are now. But once a Federal CCW is available one would be stupid to travel to various states without one if they intend to carry a gun.

I think you just dont like the idea of a Federal CCW so you are trying to pick a part any suggestions along that line. Bottom line is this unless we get a Federal CCW things will stay the same as now that being we can't travel to certain states with a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 10-19-2018, 1:14 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The only way I could support a Federal CCW is this.

1. Allows carriage of ANY "pistol" the person wishes in ALL U.S. States and Territories.

2. Exempts ALL magazine limit bans from arrests/prosecution and seizures.

3. Exempts prosecution for possession and use of all ammunition. I.e. hollow point, expanding, or lead core.

4. Exempts arrest and prosecution from all laws regarding carriage on/in Federal property, buildings and "Public Schools" and locations that serves alcohol that is not specifically designed as a bar. (Places like Chilli's, BJ's Applebees are good to carry)

5. Any defensive use of your carry gun is legally treated like any POST LEO in prosecution.

Now most states are good with these. Places like Ca, NY, NJ, HI, IL, MA etc will of course be twisting in knots and heads will explode... but this is where we are.

This is why I pray Young is upheld by the SCOTUS to force states who are bad about CCW permits to re-think thier system.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 10-19-2018, 5:35 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 425
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A uniform federal CCW may be logical, but this issue has literally nothing to do with logic, any more than the thousands of anti-gun laws on the books are particularly logical. It is all about power (as between the states and the fed) and emotion (between those who fear and would ban all guns and those who would not). In my cynical world view, these two issues are insoluble.
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 10-19-2018, 6:20 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
The only way I could support a Federal CCW is this.

1. Allows carriage of ANY "pistol" the person wishes in ALL U.S. States and Territories.

2. Exempts ALL magazine limit bans from arrests/prosecution and seizures.

3. Exempts prosecution for possession and use of all ammunition. I.e. hollow point, expanding, or lead core.

4. Exempts arrest and prosecution from all laws regarding carriage on/in Federal property, buildings and "Public Schools" and locations that serves alcohol that is not specifically designed as a bar. (Places like Chilli's, BJ's Applebees are good to carry)

5. Any defensive use of your carry gun is legally treated like any POST LEO in prosecution.

Now most states are good with these. Places like Ca, NY, NJ, HI, IL, MA etc will of course be twisting in knots and heads will explode... but this is where we are.

This is why I pray Young is upheld by the SCOTUS to force states who are bad about CCW permits to rethink their system.
I agree this is the way things should be.
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 10-19-2018, 10:54 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,155
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

AFAIK...

Federal issued CCW permits will not happen because it would run afoul existing Federal laws. [18 USC 926(a)(3)]

Which is why the push is on a Federal law mandating all States recognize/honor other States CCW permits.


Since 1986, Federal laws prohibits the Federal Gov and any Federal agency to create/maintain a firearm owners registration database using Federal forms/records.

Federal CCW permits would require a database showing who was issued those permits, which would be creating/maintaining a registration of firearm owners.
^Need the database in order for LE to able to check to see if the permits are valid.



18 USC 926
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:15 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
AFAIK...

Federal issued CCW permits will not happen because it would run afoul existing Federal laws. [18 USC 926(a)(3)]

Which is why the push is on a Federal law mandating all States recognize/honor other States CCW permits.


Since 1986, Federal laws prohibits the Federal Gov and any Federal agency to create/maintain a firearm owners registration database using Federal forms/records.

Federal CCW permits would require a database showing who was issued those permits, which would be creating/maintaining a registration of firearm owners.
^Need the database in order for LE to able to check to see if the permits are valid.



18 USC 926
(a) The Attorney General may prescribe only such rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter, including—
(3) regulations providing for effective receipt and secure storage of firearms relinquished by or seized from persons described in subsection (d)(8) or (g)(8) of section 922.
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

The Federal gov already has access to info on who owns firearms through form 4473 that is filled out when a firearm is purchased from licensed firearm dealer. But in any case having a database on CCW holders is not the same as having a database on owners.
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:26 PM
Quiet's Avatar
Quiet Quiet is offline
retired Goon
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Bernardino County
Posts: 23,155
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Dale View Post
The Federal gov already has access to info on who owns firearms through form 4473 that is filled out when a firearm is purchased from licensed firearm dealer. But in any case having a database on CCW holders is not the same as having a database on owners.
They have access to the ATF 4473 form when conducting audits and investigations.

The records are held by FFLs for 20 years (after which they can destroy them) and there is no centralized database with those records (because having one violates Federal laws).
__________________


"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” - Dalai Lama (Seattle Times, 05-15-2001).
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-19-2018, 11:56 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet View Post
They have access to the ATF 4473 form when conducting audits and investigations.

The records are held by FFLs for 20 years (after which they can destroy them)
and there is no centralized database with those records (because having one violates Federal laws).
Yes I already know that, but my point is there are records that are available to the gov that are readily accessible.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-22-2018, 12:29 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 2,820
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Well, the CCW application could be like Az let's say. No gun is listed, just the card stating you passed all the criminal background checks and you are good to go in carrying one. I got my permit before I bought my gun.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-23-2018, 1:21 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 10,799
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Well, the CCW application could be like Az let's say. No gun is listed, just the card stating you passed all the criminal background checks and you are good to go in carrying one. I got my permit before I bought my gun.
Same here in Idaho, you can carry whatever you'd like.

Qualification in Texas allowed you to use a revolver or semi-auto. If you qualified with a revolver, that's all you could carry...with a semi, you could carry either type.
__________________
Tactical is like boobs...you can sell anything with it....arf

If I could live my life all over,
It wouldn't matter anyway,
'Cause I never could stay sober
On the Corpus Christi Bay. Robert Earl Keene

Heaven goes by favor.
If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-23-2018, 4:23 PM
R Dale R Dale is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobler View Post
Well, the CCW application could be like Az let's say. No gun is listed, just the card stating you passed all the criminal background checks and you are good to go in carrying one. I got my permit before I bought my gun.
Of Course it could and should be that way, there is no good reason why you need a specific firearm listed on a CCW. CA just does it as way to make a CCW more inconvenient.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 -8. The time now is 8:39 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.