Senate nixes interstate resiprocity of concealed weapons

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You wouldn't shoot someone to stop a rape or a massacre?

I would...in a heartbeat.

If it were happening to a complete stranger in CA? Probably not. Why would I guarantee myself financial ruin and a jail sentence to help unarmed sheeple? I'd probably even get a felony record and have all my guns confiscated in AZ for helping someone like that. Sorry folks. If you're unarmed, 911 is your friend. I'm not.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Gogar

Well, passing reciprocity for your home state's CCW laws makes as much sense as passing reciprocity for something else, let's say, "age of consent."

So, if you're a MS resident, and the "age of consent" in MS is 16, then. . . .

Oh, wait. Maybe the Girl has to be a MS resident. Or maybe you both do.

Wait, if there's interstate reciprocity for CCW and you have an AZ permit, does the person you shoot have to be from AZ too, even if you're in CA?

Now I'm confused.

Age of consent is clearly a state issue because it's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. 10th Amendment covers that. Right to keep AND BEAR arms is clearly mentioned in the Const. and should therefore not be subject to state interpretation.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Bill would have allowed a person to carry concealed in ANY state, based on the rules and requirements of their HOME state. So, someone from AZ (almost no CCW requirements) would be able to drive 3 hours East, and walk into a McDonalds carrying concealed, while surrounded by Cali folks who could not.

Actually, that is not correct. A permit holder in TX would need to follow CA laws, not TX laws.

When I drive in CA, I am allowed to use my TX driver's license if I am there for a short period of time. No one worries about what the requirements are to get a license in TX vs CA. Do I follow TX laws as I drive in California? No, I follow CA driving laws.

One of the things I do everytime I travel to another state with a firearm, is I check the laws of the state I'm visting. What is the burden of retreat? How am I supposed to carry in my car? What are the laws concerning places allowed and not allowed.

Does this analogy work with the cars? Yes. We should check the differences in laws when we travel to another state. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Do you know how to park in a car in CA? What is the meaning of a White painted curb? I was fined $150 in CA, when I loaned a car to a friend. She parked in a white curb zone, thinking it was OK.

The detractors of this legislation say stuff like some states don't require training and those people would be allowed to carry in places like CA which require much training and back ground checks. The only states that I know of that do not require background checks and training are Alaska and Vermont. They don't require you to get a permit to carry. Alaska will issue you a permit, so that you can then use it to carry in other states.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

If it were happening to a complete stranger in CA? Probably not. Why would I guarantee myself financial ruin and a jail sentence to help unarmed sheeple? I'd probably even get a felony record and have all my guns confiscated in AZ for helping someone like that. Sorry folks. If you're unarmed, 911 is your friend. I'm not.

I would risk all that. I would do it because it's the right thing to do.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by red-beard

The detractors of this legislation say stuff like some states don't require training and those people would be allowed to carry in places like CA which require much training and back ground checks. The only states that I know of that do not require background checks and training are Alaska and Vermont. They don't require you to get a permit to carry. Alaska will issue you a permit, so that you can then use it to carry in other states.

Pa requires no training, but does do a basic criminal background check.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I'm stunned they managed to get 58 votes.

Wow.

Dude, that is what I am sayin'

I need to get one of these non-resident permits in the great state of Nevada, quantos deniero?

[red-beard]

Couple of hundred dollars. You might have a problem, though. Can you be a resident of California with an AZ driver's license? The same issue will apply to a CHL holder. Also, many states recognize permits of residents, but not non-residents.

[Rick Lee]

NV stopped honoring UT CCW's on July 1st. So that was $110 I wasted. First time I went to NV since I got my UT permit was on July 3rd. If I want to be legal there now, I need to get a NV non-resident permit. But it's a PITA. NV allows car carry with no permit, so I'll probably just stick to that. I did have a sidearm in my door pocket when I had a blowout in the 993 and a NV statie stopped to chat. He didn't ask and I didn't tell.

[jyl]

Seems concern about a state having particularly lax CHL requirements could be resolved by setting minimum standards for issuing a CHL, for reciprocity to apply? Such as: criminal background check, domestic violence/restraining order check, basic gun safety training.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Do you even know what the AZ requirements are? You've said this at least twice.

Yes. I lived there for 8 years, I'm quite aware of the requirements. Why? Do you think that AZ is NOT lenient in it's CCW requirements??

Originally Posted by BeyGon

Pazazu
This sounds like you think California is east of Arizona, are you sure?

Don't be an idiot, you knew exactly what I meant, despite my little mistake.

Originally Posted by red-beard

Actually, that is not correct. A permit holder in TX would need to follow CA laws, not TX laws.

Reading it again. I see that you're right (partially). This would not have allowed someone to carry in locations allowed by their home state but not the current state, it would legalize their carry in the current state even if they didn't comply with current state laws. My argument of inequality still stands, and flies in the face of state's rights, but my example is shown to be wrong. Thank you for bring it to my attention.

[red-beard]

Why is a 2nd amendment issue a "States Rights" issue? Can states put "reasonable" limits on free speech, free press? What about compelling a defendant to testify against themselves, but only on state charges?

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Why is a 2nd amendment issue a "States Rights" issue? Can states put "reasonable" limits on free speech, free press? What about compelling a defendant to testify against themselves, but only on state charges?

State CCW laws do not restrict in any way the federal right to bear arms. It's not a 2nd amendment law issue. State laws that restrict the right to carry a firearm are, but CCW is not such a law.

[red-beard]

There shouldn't be CCW laws. And Carrying is bearing.

[Pazuzu]

Originally Posted by red-beard

There shouldn't be CCW laws. And Carrying is bearing.

Yes, you're right, I just read the 2nd amendment for the first time ever, and it's quite clear that concealed carry laws are not state issues, but defined by the federal government.

I shouldn't have wasted my time making this thread, I (stupidly) expected a bit more discussion and a bit less accusations and name calling.

[campbellcj]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

You wouldn't shoot someone to stop a rape or a massacre?

I would...in a heartbeat.

I'm with Rick on this one. It is a tough call, ethically, but anything other than defending one's self or immediate family from imminent death is a felony (IIRC) here in Kaliforniastan, as well as a surefire way to get tied-up in a megabuck civil suit.

Obviously the majority of people here -- by virtue of their votes year-after-year -- truly believe that they have no reason or legal standing to defend themselves by exercising their 2nd Amendment RKBA rights, so I say let 'em deal with the consequences. Meanwhile nearly every initiative to increase funding for cops is also voted down by these same people. Go figure.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Do you think that AZ is NOT lenient in it's CCW requirements??

I don't think they're lenient. And they're certainly tougher for CCW than any other state is for a drivers license.

Let's see - eight hours of classroom instruction, range qualifying, fingerprinting and a criminal background check. What other hoops do you think I need to jump through to exercise my rights and not have the state called lenient for it? Pretty sure TX's requirements are the same, though there are a few differences in how/where one may carry. I had do the exact same training for my VA permit in 1995. What else do I need to do?

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by jyl

Seems concern about a state having particularly lax CHL requirements could be resolved by setting minimum standards for issuing a CHL, for reciprocity to apply? Such as: criminal background check, domestic violence/restraining order check, basic gun safety training.

That's what most states already have. But then who would you suggest decide and enforce those requirements? States or the feds?

Sad thing is that AZ is talking about abolishing the requirement for a permit to CCW, since anyone (who's a non-prohibited possessor) can open carry. I have a problem asking the state for permission and paying a fee to exercise my rights. But the police here have become dependent on the application fee revenue, so we'll probably keep the permit requirement. Lots of folks here refuse to get a CCW for this reason and so they open carry.

[BeyGon]

Originally Posted by Pazuzu

Yes, you're right, I just read the 2nd amendment for the first time ever, and it's quite clear that concealed carry laws are not state issues, but defined by the federal government.

I shouldn't have wasted my time making this thread, I (stupidly) expected a bit more discussion and a bit less accusations and name calling.

looks like you are the idiot, first at name calling. Can't take it, east west, whatever, idiot.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by campbellcj

I'm with Rick on this one. It is a tough call, ethically, but anything other than defending one's self or immediate family from imminent death is a felony (IIRC) here in Kaliforniastan, as well as a surefire way to get tied-up in a megabuck civil suit.

Obviously the majority of people here -- by virtue of their votes year-after-year -- truly believe that they have no reason or legal standing to defend themselves by exercising their 2nd Amendment RKBA rights, so I say let 'em deal with the consequences. Meanwhile nearly every initiative to increase funding for cops is also voted down by these same people. Go figure.

I was a soldier.

There's no way in hell i could stand by and watch as a gunman killed my countrymen in front of me. I could never live with myself afterward. It would haunt me forever.

I would rather die.

[Rick Lee]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I was a soldier.

There's no way in hell i could stand by and watch as a gunman killed my countrymen in front of me. I could never live with myself afterward. It would haunt me forever.

I would rather die.

Don't make it out to sound like it's a natural reaction for me to stand by. But CA is not a free state and you WILL get sued and sent to jail and lose your right to vote and own guns.....all for doing the right thing in CA.