Steve Saunders Goldwing Forums banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
21 - 35 of 35 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Here in Texas it is easy to obtain a ccw but the restrictions on where you can carry are crazy. Anytime I go into town I just leave my gun at home because I have gotten out of my car, maybe had to walk a block or two and than find out where I am trying to go has a restriction against carrying.
In my short time in Texas I only saw one place that prohibited guns( besides the National Parks buildings)
Don't know about TX laws but in FL if you possess a gun in a place that display"no guns" the only thing they or cops could do is to ask you to leave the premises. In all my 4 years since I carry a gun here I yet have to see such a place. One has to remember the key word for carrying a gun in a place the prohibits it: " knowingly".
I don't know anything and I forget almost everything
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Unfortunately, you will still have to adhere to each state's magalip capacity restrictions.
NOt so sure

(2) The term `handgun' includes any magazine for use in a
handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its
magazine. (copied from HR38 bill)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
i Feel it’s just a matter of time before most states approve “ open carry “
My opinion is that open carry serves no purpose except to piss off the anti gun people who are shaking in their boots when they see a gun.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,917 Posts
Clipazines. :smile2:

FWIW, the Hudson house bill had a provision for non-resident CCWs to apply so if you are in a non-issuing area, you could get a non-resident CCW (e.g. from AZ) and then use it in your own state (the senate bill did not have this provision). This will really pi$$ off states like California and other anti-2A states. Hopefully this clause survives the review process for those people in non-issuing areas.
I went over this bill quite a few times and never saw such provision.
But people from California and NJ find it some place.
Are you from an antigun state?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,775 Posts
I hope it does come to fruition without being too badly mutilated. At my age it's becoming a real PITA to keep all the individual state codes straight... LOL
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,773 Posts
Yea it would be nice to have just one law to cover the whole nation. The way it is now you don't know from state to state or even city to town. I was at a pubic med clinic a couple of months back to get a free flue shot. They came out and made all people waiting to leave the waiting room. Moved us to another area in the building. I went out the back door and went around to the front main entrance to catch a smoke. Cop's all over the place. They soon came out with a guy in handcuffs and took him away. I asked one cop what's going on. Well this guy had come into the clinic carrying and I guess someone noticed and called the cops. Here outside there was a sign against anyone other than cops carrying a gun. I guess he did not see it on his way in. Here in Texas it is easy to obtain a ccw but the restrictions on where you can carry are crazy. Anytime I go into town I just leave my gun at home because I have gotten out of my car, maybe had to walk a block or two and than find out where I am trying to go has a restriction against carrying. Now I have to go back to the car, lock it in the glove box and then go back to finish what I came to do. More and more places are putting up these signs in town. There really is a need to do something about a national law that applies all over and removes most restrictions save for a very few.
The only place locally I know of that prohibits it is the medical clinic. I am a bit nervous while in the waiting room.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,781 Posts
It would be nice if it passes - then my TN permit would be legal in Illinois where my kids live... TN has reciprocals with 33 other states but not IL...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
NOt so sure

(2) The term `handgun' includes any magazine for use in a
handgun and any ammunition loaded into the handgun or its
magazine. (copied from HR38 bill)
Hudson was on Fox Snooze this week talking about HR 38. He said you still have to follow the laws of the state and he referenced 8 rounds in New York. I am not up to speed on New York capacity limits.


I went over this bill quite a few times and never saw such provision.
But people from California and NJ find it some place.
Are you from an antigun state?
Yep, I live in a very anti-2A state where you can be imprisoned for saying the wrong pronoun, but can murder a women in public with a stolen weapon and not be charged for it if you are in a protected class.

Here is a link to HR 38 and the highlighted applicable excerpt. It is written in tortured cryptic language.

Hudson supposedly used the language "A STATE" versus "YOUR STATE" to allow for non-resident CCWs.

The "or" section following the highlighted section applies to constitutional carry states where permits are not required.

I had questioned Hudson on his FB page months ago and he confirmed his bill included non-resident CCW provisions. This provision my get stripped out as it makes its way through DC.

“§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms “(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—
...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/38?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22concealed+carry+reciprocity+act%22%5D%7D

HTH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
If the non-resident CCW provision survives the DC pork/soul-trading sessions, the following benefits maybe applicable.

Get a non-resident CCW in a state that has:

- long times between renewals (e.g. CA is every 2 years, AZ is every 5 years).
- better application and renewal rates potentially saving hundreds or thousands of $$$. (e.g. AZ)
- does not limit the number you may carry. (e.g. AZ)
- does not document which firearms you may carry. (e.g. AZ)
- actually sends you renewal notifications as reminders. (e.g. AZ)
- does not require fees and documentation changes every time you change firearms. (e.g. AZ)
- does not restrict firearms to a dwindling list of "on roster" handguns. (e.g. AZ)
- does not take months or years to submit and process an application. (e.g. AZ)


 

·
Official "Cheeky Plonker"
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
Judged by 12 or carried by 6. That's my philosophy!

My home state, Texas, carries reciprocity into most of the states I've ventured into.

If you think I stopped and put my gun up in Alabama, back in the day when it was illegal and I was travelling east.

Then you're the one that's crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
Yea I'm not sure what the penalties are if you are caught carrying in a place with restrictions here in Texas. Like I said here in my little city more and more businesses are putting up these signs. They have the right to post them under the present law. My wife works in the motor vehicle dpt and they have a sign up outside that restricts anyone but law enforcement. Most public office's also have them. My understanding was that local governments could not do this except in court rooms. County board said they did not want anyone carrying in their buildings and would fight the state when the time came. I remember other city's in Texas doing the same thing. My wife was in the hospital last year and when I went to visit her they had a sign restricting any one but law enforcement. Like I said under these conditions I just leave it home and that is what they want around here. I guess they think if they make it a real pain in the as$ every one will just check their guns at the county line. Kinda of reminds me of something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Part of the Brady Bill, HR 4477 fix-NICS is getting attached to HR 38 for a combined single vote. Someone is playing games.

Here is what Rep. Thomas Massie said about the HR 4477 fix-NICS bill.

Originally Posted by Rep. Thomas Massie
ALERT: Feinstein/Schumer sponsored gun legislation that amends the “Brady bill” will be added to Concealed Carry Reciprocity bill (HR 38) in the House this week.

As Chairman of the Second Amendment Caucus, I’m blowing the whistle on the swamp. Last week, Republicans in the House fast tracked through committee HR 4477, a gun bill titled “fix-NICS.” The Senate version of this bill is cosponsored by Senator Dianne Feintstein and Senator Chuck Schumer and it will send $625 million over 5 years to states to expand the national background check database. The bill will also advance former President Obama’s agenda of pressuring every branch of the administration (such as the Veteran’s Administration) to submit thousands of more names to the NICS background check database to deny gun purchases. The House bill is identical in every way to the Senate bill except the House bill will also commission a study on bump-stocks.

What you don’t know, and what virtually no one in Washington wants you to know, is that House leadership plans to merge the fix-NICS bill with popular Concealed Carry Reciprocity legislation, HR 38, and pass both of them with a single vote. Folks, this is how the swamp works. House leadership expects constituents to call their representatives demanding a vote on the reciprocity bill, when in fact the only vote will be on the two combined bills.

How fast did Fix-NICS, HR 4477, move through the Judiciary Committee? This bill broke the previous records for fast track legislation. It was voted out of committee within hours of being introduced in the House. Check the dates on this link: https://www.congress.gov/…/115th-con...bill/4477/text . That means the text of the bill wasn’t even discoverable by the public on congress.gov until after the bill passed out of committee! The text was however available over in the Senate where you will find Senator Diane Feinstein and Senator Chuck Schumer are cosponsors. https://www.congress.gov/…/115t…/sen...135/cosponsors

If that’s not odd enough, consider this: the fix-NICS bill was introduced in the House by a Democrat two weeks ago. https://www.congress.gov/…/115th-con...bill/4434/text . But, in a very unusual move, the bill was re-introduced verbatim by a Republican two weeks later, with language added to it to commission a bump-stock study. Six Republicans in Judiciary Committee weren’t persuaded by the switcheroo, and voted No. However, because every Democrat voted yes and some Republicans voted yes at the urging of the Chairman, the bill made it out of committee. The deed will be complete this week when the bill is quietly added to the Reciprocity bill, HR 38, and passed without the knowledge of those who would oppose the legislation if they knew what was in it.

To recap, what are some clues that you should be concerned with the fix-NICS bill?

(1) The first sentence after the title of the bill reads “Section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (34 U.S.C. 40901) is amended…”
(2) Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are cosponsors in the Senate.
(3) It’s being rammed through, without a hearing, in a very nontransparent process, and it will be passed by attaching it to the popular concealed carry reciprocity bill which already has enough votes to pass on its own.
(4) It spends over half a billion dollars to collect more names to include in a list of people who will never be allowed to own a firearm.
(5) It compels administrative agencies, not just courts, to adjudicate your second amendment rights.

In my opinion, #5 is the biggest problem. The bill encourages administrative agencies, not the courts, to submit more names to a national database that will determine whether you can or can’t obtain a firearm. When President Obama couldn’t get Congress to pass gun control, he implemented a strategy of compelling, through administrative rules, the Veterans Administration and the Social Security Administration to submit lists of veterans and seniors, many of whom never had a day in court, to be included in the NICS database of people prohibited from owning a firearm. Only a state court, a federal (article III) court, or a military court, should ever be able to suspend your rights for any significant period of time.

Does the NICS background check system have problems? Yes, it results in tens of thousands of unjustified denials of gun purchases every year. But like many bills in Congress, the fix-NICS doesn’t live up to its name – it will likely do the opposite. It throws millions of dollars at a faulty program and it will result in more law-abiding citizens being deprived of their right to keep and bear arms.

If we continue to give the executive branch more money and encouragement to add names to the list of people prohibited from buying a firearm (without a day in court) and if the gun banners achieve their goal of universal background checks, one day, a single person elected to the office of President will be able to achieve universal gun prohibition.

House leadership should immediately de-couple the fix-NICS legislation from the concealed carry reciprocity legislation. People hate it when Washington combines bills like our leadership plans to do this week.

A few have speculated that the House is combining the bills to ensure reciprocity will pass in the Senate. I have some news for them: Senators Feinstein and Schumer aren’t going to vote for reciprocity even if it contains the fix-NICS legislation they support for expanding the background check database. If someone is naïve enough to think that’s going to work, and they’re willing to accept fix-NICS to get reciprocity, then they should ask the Senate to go first with the combined bill.

Here’s a dangerous scenario that’s more likely to play out: The House uses the popularity of reciprocity (HR 38) to sneak fix-NICS through, while the Senate passes fix-NICS only. The Senate and the House meet at conference with their respective bills, with the result being fix-NICS emerges from conference without reciprocity. Fix-NICS comes back to the House and passes because all of the Democrats will vote for it (as they just did in Judiciary Committee) and many Republicans will vote for it. Because Republicans already voted for it once as part of the reciprocity deal that never came to pass, they won’t have a solid footing for opposing fix-NICS as a standalone bill. Then we’ll end up with fix-NICS, which is basically an expansion of the Brady Bill, without reciprocity.

If our House leadership insists on bringing the flawed fix-NICS bill to the floor, they shouldn’t play games. We should vote separately on HR 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, and HR 4477, the fix-NICS bill. And we should be given enough time to amend the fix-NICS bill, because it needs to be fixed, if not axed.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,773 Posts
I wouldn't mind the amendment so much if they would enforce existing laws but no law is going to keep a criminal from getting a gun or using it in a criminal way. Laws only restrict law abiding people.
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top