Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: CPL 18 Project update

  1. #1
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    If you want to subscribe to important updates regarding HB 3082, please send an email to
    "cpl-18-subscribe@yahoogroups.com"

    HB 3082; lowering the age requirement CPL down to 18!

    The blog site is here
    http://cpl18.wordpress.com/


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Marysville, Washington, USA
    Posts
    174

    Post imported post

    This new group is dedicated solely to this project, it won't be a high-volume general discussion group. So if you know people in that age group please pass it on to them, everyone else who is interested is welcome too.

    Next thing we have to work on for that project is getting the bill some press. I'll be doing an op-ed on it soon and hopefully we can get some letters printed too. So far I don't think there have been any news items at all about it, so that needs to change.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Did we get any kind of flyers to hand out? I live in a college town, and can drop or post a few at some places frequented by the kids.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    SVG, here you go http://cpl18.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/cpl-flier2.pdf
    This was made weeks ago, where were you, under a rock?


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I just couldn't find it been on blackeberry. Thought it would be good to have it posted in this thread too.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769

    Post imported post

    Poosharker,

    You might want to read this and explore it a bit.

    The Article IV Privileges & Immunities Clause means "that in any state every citizen of any other state is to have the same privileges and immunities which the citizens of that state enjoy. This section, in effect, prevents a state from discriminating against citizens of other states in favor of its own.” Hague v. Committee for Indus. Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 511 (1939)."A State may discriminate against nonresidents only where its reasons are ‘substantial,’ and the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to those reasons."Supreme Court of New Hampshire v. Piper, 470 U.S. 274, 288 (1985). Therefore, a state may not restrict licensure to state citizens to partake in a privilege,id. (“We conclude that New Hampshire’s bar residency requirement violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV, § 2, of the United States Constitution. The nonresident’s interest in practicing law is a ‘privilege’ protected by the Clause. Although the lawyer is ‘an officer of the court,’ he does not hold a position that can be entrusted only to a ‘full-fledged member of the political community.’ ”), nor may a state otherwise deny to nonresidents a privilege granted to its citizens even absent a licensing scheme.Lee v. Minner, 458 F.3d 194, 201-02 (3rd Cir. 2006) (“Pursuant to Article IV, section 2, a state may not discriminate against noncitizens with respect to any protected right unless the state has a substantial reason for the discriminatory policy that bears a substantial relationship to the state’s objectives. Delaware’s public records law discriminates on its face between citizens and noncitizens. Although the State has a substantial interest in ‘defining its political community,’ the citizens-only provision of its public records law does not bear a substantial relationship to that interest. Accordingly, we conclude that the provision violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s orders granting summary judgment in favor of Lee and enjoining Delaware from limiting FOIA benefits to Delaware citizens.”). However, a state may discriminate where the state granted privilege is discretionary and the state asserts a cognizable and substantial reason to discriminate where the difference in treatment bears a close or substantial relation to that reason. Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 95 (2nd Cir. 2005) (“Privileges and Immunities Clause cannot preclude New York’s residency requirement in light of the State’s substantial interest in monitoring handgun licensees.”).



  7. #7
    Regular Member OrangeIsTrouble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tukwila, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,398

    Post imported post

    Trigger Dr,
    I don't quite get the clear message, there are a lot of things popping up when I am reading that.

    One thing that pops up is, that would override something like a CPL not being accepted from another state.

    But then it talks about non residents being given the same rights.

    The first part seems like it basically says because I am a citizen I should be able to enjoy the same privilege another citizen would have, such as being 18 and able to carry as a 30 yr old would be able to.

    Edited to add confused smiley! :?


    Been harassed by the police? Yelled at by the anti-gun neighbors? Mother doesn't approve?

    Then this is the place for you! Click here to get back at them!

  8. #8
    Regular Member FMCDH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    2,043

    Post imported post

    Poosharker wrote:
    Trigger Dr,
    I don't quite get the clear message, there are a lot of things popping up when I am reading that.

    One thing that pops up is, that would override something like a CPL not being accepted from another state.

    But then it talks about non residents being given the same rights.

    The first part seems like it basically says because I am a citizen I should be able to enjoy the same privilege another citizen would have, such as being 18 and able to carry as a 30 yr old would be able to.

    Edited to add confused smiley! :?
    http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1616
    Privileges and Immunities

    n. the fundamental rights that people enjoy in free governments, protected by the U.S. Constitution in Article IV: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities in the several States," and specifically to be protected against state action by the Constitution's 14th Amendment (1868): "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." The definition of "privileges and immunities" was first spelled out by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington in 1823: "protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole." However, the exact nature of privileges and immunities which the state governments could limit has long been in dispute, with the U.S. Supreme Court gradually tipping toward protecting the individual rights of citizens against state statutes that might impinge on constitutional rights.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •