Concealed Carry, Politics, Current events and friendly discussion
https://ohioccwforums.org/
It'll probably be changed in reconciliation.dustymedic wrote:That may be what kills it. i can't see NJ, NY, or Ca allowing people to come into their state carrying that have never had a background check....
I hope not - but then, I also hope they add back in the part of the bill that covered DC...M-Quigley wrote:It'll probably be changed in reconciliation.dustymedic wrote:That may be what kills it. i can't see NJ, NY, or Ca allowing people to come into their state carrying that have never had a background check....
Thanks for the info Alan. With what is explained in the article I can very well see that the anti-gun state legislators would try to pass state law prohibiting concealed carry altogether.techmike wrote:Thanks for the link Alan, great post as usual.AlanM wrote:For those that haven't seen it I suggest you read this:
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know
Would be interesting since Moore v. Madigan ruled that Illinois' concealed carry ban was unconstitutional. Not to say some wouldn't try it, but thankfully there's already a precedent saying it must be offered in some form.qmti wrote:Thanks for the info Alan. With what is explained in the article I can very well see that the anti-gun state legislators would try to pass state law prohibiting concealed carry altogether.techmike wrote:Thanks for the link Alan, great post as usual.AlanM wrote:For those that haven't seen it I suggest you read this:
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know
I know someone with a NYC carry permit. Those places aren't likely going to want to screw over the elite, because that would put them on the same playing field as he once put it, "the ham and eggers".qmti wrote:Thanks for the info Alan. With what is explained in the article I can very well see that the anti-gun state legislators would try to pass state law prohibiting concealed carry altogether.techmike wrote:Thanks for the link Alan, great post as usual.AlanM wrote:For those that haven't seen it I suggest you read this:
Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act Passed by U.S. House! What You Need To Know
That's how I understand it as well from reading it.AlanM wrote:OBTW
Here's the text of H.R. 38 as sent to the Senate.
CONCEALED CARRY RECIPROCITY ACT OF 2017
I THINK that if I'm reading (a) correctly residents of Vermont and other constitutional carry states just need to show photo ID that verifies their state of residence.
I heard on the Shooting from the hip radio show on WHIO am last Saturday that the hosts (from Sim Trainer in Moraine) were saying that in the bill Congress passed, there is a provision that says that if someone is charged in places that currently like to ignore federal law, (like NJ or NY) that if the defendant wins, the attorney for the defense can go after the state for the costs of the defense. In other words, if you arrest someone simply because you think that you're above the law, and want to bankrupt the victim of this harassment then it'll cost them. Anybody know if this is correct? Any thoughts on this?JimE wrote:Well you can tell the sex preda, .....excuse me the progressive Democract's are getting scared.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/07/menen ... er-jersey/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This sorry excuse of a sewer rat needs to be in a cage.
Here's the text that deals with that, as passed by the house:M-Quigley wrote:I heard on the Shooting from the hip radio show on WHIO am last Saturday that the hosts (from Sim Trainer in Moraine) were saying that in the bill Congress passed, there is a provision that says that if someone is charged in places that currently like to ignore federal law, (like NJ or NY) that if the defendant wins, the attorney for the defense can go after the state for the costs of the defense. In other words, if you arrest someone simply because you think that you're above the law, and want to bankrupt the victim of this harassment then it'll cost them. Anybody know if this is correct? Any thoughts on this?
(Emphasis mine)``(c)(1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in
accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or
otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation
of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the
possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is
probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not
provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents
as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the
individual has a license or permit as required by this section.
``(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal
proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a
reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the
conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).
``(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense
in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing
defendant a reasonable attorney's fee.
``(d)(1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or
immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute,
ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political
subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court
against any other person, including a State or political subdivision
thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for
damages or other appropriate relief.
``(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action
brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court
deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
If it wasn't pretty easy and quick to make contact with our elected officials, I'd skip the perennial lefties like Brown. Better to focus on finding a conservative Senator candidate who could defeat Brown and put him out to pasture.shootsome wrote:So have you contacted Sherrod Brown to vote for S 446?