gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
How ya figure?
There are many lawsuits going on now that McDonald is decided, it is the natural course of the events...
Taka a look at Gray's lawsuit in CO.
How ya figure?
There are many lawsuits going on now that McDonald is decided, it is the natural course of the events...
Taka a look at Gray's lawsuit in CO.
My brain's fine. I stopped reading when I got to "a trip to Chicago" and wondered, "...Why would anybody want to go there?"There goes my brain for the night.
It's called incrementalism. It's worked wonderfully for those who take away our rights for the last few decades. It can work the other way as well. Yes, it's an infringement, but in the case of the places mentioned, it's less of an infringement than was present before, therefore, an improvement. Also the only realistic way there ever will be any improvement (barring national cataclysm). Like it or not, you're simply not going to wake up one day to a libertarian paradise where you can OC down Pennsylvania avenue with no gov't permission slip.
We made it clear in [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Heller [/FONT][/FONT]that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook][FONT=Century Schoolbook,Century Schoolbook]Id[/FONT][/FONT]., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.
According to the current SCOTUS, it is merely a "reasonable restriction". Don't expect it to go away any time soon. Permitted carry in 50 states is the first step, then onward from there.
Nowhere in the majority opinion is the term "reasonable restriction" used. McDonald v. Chicago. DO NOT FALL FOR THE ANTI'S USING THESE WORDS, IT IS NOT TRUE!
The 3 areas that the majority covered as areas that could be restricted are: 1) felons and the mentally ill 2) sensitive places (government buildings and schools are specifically mentioned) 3) commercial sale of arms (pg 39-40 Alito writing for the majority)
Nowhere in the majority opinion is the term "reasonable restriction" used. McDonald v. Chicago. DO NOT FALL FOR THE ANTI'S USING THESE WORDS, IT IS NOT TRUE!
The 3 areas that the majority covered as areas that could be restricted are: 1) felons and the mentally ill 2) sensitive places (government buildings and schools are specifically mentioned) 3) commercial sale of arms (pg 39-40 Alito writing for the majority)
My brain's fine. I stopped reading when I got to "a trip to Chicago" and wondered, "...Why would anybody want to go there?"
In Feb FL became reciprocal with WA which means my FL cwp is good in WA now. Good for me because I didn't want to have to get another one.
RCW 9.41.073
Concealed pistol license — Reciprocity.
(1)(a) A person licensed to carry a pistol in a state the laws of which recognize and give effect in that state to a concealed pistol license issued under the laws of the state of Washington is authorized to carry a concealed pistol in this state if:
...
(b) This section applies to a license holder from another state only while the license holder is not a resident of this state. A license holder from another state must carry the handgun in compliance with the laws of this state.
Maybe soon we will see all 50 States with one permit, not 2 permits for 38, etc. This current mess is similar to when the automobile was new. Different rules and requirements everywhere. That too took time.
Correct gentlemen, and now I expect you to correct others when they mess it up. :shocker:
I don't expect everyone to read a 200+ page decision of legal mumbo jumbo. I am a Constitutional Law junkie (it's what I studied in college).
Yes the left will use those words, but too bad, because it is not stare decis! Haha!
Not if you are now a resident of WA.
Thank you, somehow I missed this. I called the department of licensing to confirm and because I would be here for 1.5 years I would need a WA CPL as well. I don't know what the cut off for being a resident is. I informed the lady that I was stationed In WA from FL and she asked how long I would be in WA for so I assume there is a time frame where someone becomes a resident.
You may want to recheck that. If you are active duty military, you do not automatically become a resident after "X" days when stationed in another state.
There basically three addresses for those in the military. Home of record, which is where you lived when you entered service. Legal residence, which determines where you pay any state taxes, and physical address which is where you regularly reside in the area of your duty station.
If you keep your Home state's driver license and don't change your legal residence info with the military, you will continue to be a resident of your home state during your assignment in WA. The easiest determination of residency is where do you register to vote? If you continue to register and vote by absentee from your home state and are active duty, you do not become a resident where you get stationed.
While in the military, changing residency is up to you, you do not become a resident where you are stationed unless you choose to. active duty military are exempt from the laws requiring you to change vehicle registration and get a WA driver license.
to do some reading in my vehicle!
NOT!:lol:
Thx defender, I went to get one today. Too bad I got the large dictionary size one...