Sounds great!
But words are cheap. It will take a lot to get it through the legislative process. The problem is that if it becomes law then the politicians just lost something to promise during the next election cycle.
Yeah. sometimes I’m cynical.
The View From North Central Idaho
Ramblings on explosives, guns, politics, and sex by a redneck Idaho farm boy who became a software engineer living near Seattle.
Sounds good in theory. Likely won’t work very well in practice. And that’s if they can get it passed which is unlikely. One way places like Kali will get around it is to simply declare a LOT of places “offlimits” to carry. They have already done that for those few who succeed in getting a CCW permit in the state. And even though courts smack the practice down with regularity they just fine tune the infringements and do it again…repeatedly. The real issue is the fact that there are ANY laws on the books ANYWHERE that pertain to firearms. Other than safe storage laws which may be debatable pretty much ALL the laws on the books are 2A violations. Which the courts simply refuse to smack down.
Been in ID four years now and never been tempted to get CCW. But, now?
Traveling back to my former homeland on the West Coast seems like a huge opportunity NOT to take advantage of.
I lived in a county that didn’t even accept applications.
The only way you got CCW was by being a member of the Sheriff’s Advisory Board that was a group that raised money for special ‘programs’ run by the incumbent. Chief among them was a war chest for her reelection campaigns.
Not sure where you are in ID but I’ve not had any problem getting a CCW – not that I need one in-state. So maybe it’s a county problem not state.
+1 for Dan. “Sensitive places” is the biggest threat. When coupled with repeal of preemption like CO, it enables God knows which pissant special district to establish gun free zones.
A sign at all the borders, airports, bus stations, and train stations:
“Attention: California is a Sensitive Place.”
It reminds me of a line at the beginning of the Musical, “The Music Man,”
“Cigarettes are illegal in this state.”
Like the Zen master said, we’ll see.
I’m of the mind that SCOTUS needs to come right out and tell everyone. The 2A means exactly what it says. The right not only to keep, (What and where I want), but to bear also, (Where I feel the need), shall not be infringed.
Then start fining and jailing for infringements.
Till then it’s just a bullshit political game. Just like it has been for a close to a 100 years now.
That’s the problem with east coast conservatives like Trump. They like playing the game more than winning the fight.
Glad he’s publicly committed to it.
The issue is that this legislation shouldn’t be necessary. Even assuming CCW permits pass Constitutional muster (they don’t), they should be covered under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Y’know, the line in the U.S. Constitution that means a document (drivers license, ID card, marriage certificate, divorce decree, etc.) issued in one state is assumed valid in all states. If CCW permits are a thing, they should be a valid thing everywhere.
(And yes, “Every state has different gun laws.” Guess what? Every state has slightly different driving and vehicle laws, too. Somehow we all manage.)
For years, Rand McNally had a page in its road atlases that listed significant differences in such laws as whether right turns on red were always permitted, always prohibited, or had to be posted to be prohibited.
As you said, we all managed with all the different drivers license standards, even including the one state in the south which my Drivers Education teacher said issued drivers licenses to anyone who applied and made it around the block without incident.
Legislation may not be necessary. A Trump DOJ could wage lawfare on those jurisdictions that refuse to recognize another State’s CCW permit.
Joe often calls for Section 1983 prosecutions on these despots; this may be the (first) vehicle for them.
Just tie them down with the expense—money and time—of the lawsuits. The process is the punishment.
Pingback: Full Faith And Credit | The Zelman Partisans
2 things:
1) “sensitive places” needs to be defined as a place that police officers (broadly defined) can’t carry.
2) neither party wants to “solve” some issues – they want to *milk* the issue for campaign contributions. Whenever they have had control of the government (White House, Senate, and House of Representatives), they didn’t pass the requisite legislation to end the “problem”. The two most obvious ones are guns and abortion.
So, correctional facilities, your anti-gun neighbor’s living room, and pretty much nowhere else?
Yep. You gotta problem wit dat?
(I assume you meant *restricted* nowhere else)
“your anti-gun neighbor’s living room” is a private property not your own. It would be your neighbor that restricts carry, not the government. You would equally be within your right to require your neighbor to carry to gain entrance to your living room.
If Republicans are worried out losing the 2A issues as the well to dip into every election, just be reassured that if they solve that problem, they can become the “colonize the Moon, L5 and Mars” party.