Constitutional CCW Reciprcity

Status
Not open for further replies.
wayneinFL said:
I'm happy for you and your situation. But if I travel to PA, I don't have the option to carry. They dropped us because our permits are good for 7 years.
Click to expand...
Are you certain?

My understanding is that Florida residents can still carry in PA on their FL permits. What the PA attorney general did was to slam the door on PA residents carrying in PA on out-of-state permits rather than getting a PA license to carry firearms (LTCF).

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf
 
Last edited:
I got a better one for everyone. A few line federal law.


If you can legally own a firearm under federal standards and laws, then you have the right to carry it on your person, concealed or unconcealed. State laws and rules concerning where you can carry should still be enforced, but the ability to restrict carry from out of state residents shall be illegal.

Aka no permit needed and no class required.
 
Are you certain?

My understanding is that Florida residents can still carry in PA of their FL permits. What the PA attorney general did was to slam the door on PA residents carrying in PA on out-of-state permits rather than getting a PA license to carry firearms (LTCF).
Click to expand...

I was mistaken. I misread the FL site. Caught it when I looked at PA site. You are correct.

And when we lost Washington, it was because we extended the right to carry to veterans under 21. :mad:
 
noelf2 said:
And you had to put it away for many more places than that just 5 or 6 years ago. Point is we're getting there without the feds help.
Click to expand...
I disagree that we're "getting there."

I hold a home state permit and three non-resident permits. The number of states in which this assortment allows me to carry concealed has been reduced by three or four states, total, in the twelve or so years since I obtained the fourth permit.

That's not what I consider progress.
 
I hold a home state permit and three non-resident permits. The number of states in which this assortment allows me to carry concealed has been reduced by three or four states, total, in the twelve or so years since I obtained the fourth permit.

That's not what I consider progress.
Click to expand...

Most times that happens because a state has either dropped some requirements and is closer to constitutional carry, or the other states are retaliating against a state that stopped honoring their permits for some reason. Which was it for you? And, do you think a federal law/act will force the states that now discriminate against your carry permits to roll over and say "Oh, OK, we'll like you now!" A federal law/act would be ineffective.
 
sfwusc said:
I got a better one for everyone. A few line federal law.


If you can legally own a firearm under federal standards and laws, then you have the right to carry it on your person, concealed or unconcealed. State laws and rules concerning where you can carry should still be enforced, but the ability to restrict carry from out of state residents shall be illegal.

Aka no permit needed and no class required.
Click to expand...

I have a better one for you:

The right to keep and bear arms that is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment is absolute and not subject to any sort of restrictive interpretation. All federal and state laws that attempt to limit this are hereby deemed unconstitutional and void.
 
noelf2 said:
Most times that happens because a state has either dropped some requirements and is closer to constitutional carry, or the other states are retaliating against a state that stopped honoring their permits for some reason. Which was it for you? And, do you think a federal law/act will force the states that now discriminate against your carry permits to roll over and say "Oh, OK, we'll like you now!" A federal law/act would be ineffective.
Click to expand...
A mandatory recognition of my home state permit would mean that it doesn't matter whether or not any other state "likes" me, they would have to recognize my RKBA within their territory. If a federal law requires the other 49 states to recognize my home state permit, how -- exactly -- would it be "ineffective"?
 
If a federal law requires the other 49 states to recognize my home state permit, how -- exactly -- would it be "ineffective"?
Click to expand...

Here are some exact examples: Federal law says possession/use of marijuana is illegal, but several states ignore the federal law and allow growing, possessing, and smoking of it (basically thumbing their noses at the feds). Federal law says you can peaceably transport a firearm through states even though some of the states or cities within don't allow any sort of unregistered firearm, they arrest you anyway, and the feds don't come to your aid. States are enacting laws now that make any new federal 2A restrictions (so called sensible firearms laws) like bullet limits and assault weapon bans not enforceable in the state. I put my money on the probability that many states would do the same thing with any federal reciprocity act.
 
Last edited:
noelf2 said:
States are enacting laws now that make any new federal 2A restrictions (so called sensible firearms laws) like bullet limits and assault weapon bans not enforceable in the state. I put my money on the probability that many states would do the same thing with any federal reciprocity act.
Click to expand...
It's not at all clear that such laws are constitutional. As it stands today, the only reason they're still on the books is that the feds haven't enacted any new gun laws with which to test them.

That said, rather than formally passing anti-reciprocity laws, I believe that jurisdictions like NYC will simply disregard the law altogether and arrest out-of-state CHL holders anyway, then wait for a pro-2A USDOJ to take them to court over it.

Also, I suspect that several states will suddenly enact stiff penalties for carry of an unregistered handgun by a license holder, and that the procedure for registering one from out-of-state will be annoyingly inconvenient. :rolleyes:
 
I've watched folks qualified to carry via LEOSA shoot, and some of them give me pause as well
Click to expand...

LOL, I'm always said the most dangerous job in LE is Firearms instructor.

All joking aside, I dead set against federal mandatory training. I'm all for training, but not MANDATORY training.

Things change every two years in the federal government. You never know who's in power. The last thing I want is a government to sets the standard so high that one could never pass it.
 
Things change every two years in the federal government. You never know who's in power. The last thing I want is a government to sets the standard so high that one could never pass it.
Click to expand...

It depends on how it is written. If the administration, or someone appointed by the administration. If it's like in FL, training has to be by an NRA or law enforcement instructor in which the instructor watches a student safely discharge a firearm. A DD214 or a hunter safety card works. So our training requirement is not set by the government. There is more than one avenue.

It doesn't have to be like Utah where the government approves instructors and sets minimums for the curriculum.
 
State by state reciprocity isn't the answer ... as an example, my wife and I drove to Vegas for a vacation in October. Every state we passed through accepted my Texas CHL -- except for Nevada. Before we crossed the state line, I dutifully unloaded my PM9, padlocked it in its case and stashed it in the trunk. For a week, all I had for protection was a 3-inch folder, not ideal. I understand the issue of varying requirements for licensing among the states, but I would NOT be a fan of universal rules handed down from DC ... picturing a semester-long course and firing 500 rounds into a pie plate at 50 yards to pass the national test. We need a national law that allows carry in all states, but getting something like that passed, especially in the current atmosphere in Washington, seems like a pipe dream.

On the plus side, we saw some great shows and I gained 10 pounds via eating at every buffet in town.
 
State by state reciprocity isn't the answer ... as an example, my wife and I drove to Vegas for a vacation in October. Every state we passed through accepted my Texas CHL -- except for Nevada
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like state to state reciprocity is doing pretty well for you. :confused: Is for me too ... as an example, 10 years ago while driving to Florida to visit my folks I had to unload my gun and pack it away when I got to South Carolina. I couldn't get it back out until i got to Florida. Now I can keep it on through South Carolina and Alabama, but have to pack it away in Georgia. Getting way closer to reciprocity in Georgia too from what I hear. Also, several years ago I had to put my gun away in Illinois when driving to see family in Missouri, and I had to leave it put away the whole time I was in Missouri too. Now, I still have to put it away in Illinois but can get it out again as soon as I get to Missouri. Illinois is making great progress too and I'll bet that in a year or two I'll be able to keep it out there too. Reciprocity is doing great IMHO.
 
Last edited:
wayneinFL said:
Maybe after we strike down may issue, we can get states to offer permits to out of state residents. That would be a step.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that not all states allow an out-of-state person to get a license in their state. I've also noticed a trend where some states will not recognize another state's license holder unless the person is a resident of that other state.

If you look at this map, you'll see (indicated by the dark blue) that there is a large area of the US where the states only issue CHLs to their own residents.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

One of the problems is that states change who they recognize. These websites help a lot, but ultimately it is our own responsibility to check with each state that we might be passing through on a trip to see if our CHL is recognized by that state. Or you can just take your chances and hope that you won't be stopped for "revenue enhancement" while you are passing through a state.

As far as I know, every state recognizes the license plates and inspection stickers (or lack thereof) of every other state. As far as I'm concerned, CHLs should be the same way.

Now, I can remember back in the old days when states had agreements amongst themselves that allowed the revenue enhancement to be enforced. If you got stopped in a state that did not have an agreement with your state, the revenue enhancement officer would arrest you for a simple speeding ticket, have your car towed, and you would have to make bail to get out of jail. Of course, this lead to some people who were stopped just asking the officer if they could "just pay the fine now in cash". Whether that cash made it back to the general coffers, is another issue entirely. I've used that technique when driving in Mexico over the years. Yeah, it's bribery, but it's CHEAP bribery, so it's OK. :)
 
revenue enhancement officer
Click to expand...

:D

Now, I still have to put it away in Illinois but can get it out again as soon as I get to Missouri. Illinois is making great progress too and I'll bet that in a year or two I'll be able to keep it out there too. Reciprocity is doing great IMHO.
Click to expand...

FYI, there is no provision in IL for reciprocity. But you can pressure your state AG to lobby for one. ;)

But if you live in HI, you can apply for a non resident permit. :rolleyes:

Texas is in a similar situation to FL. We both have about 35 states, which is about all you can get. You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.

I understand for a lot of you, interstate carry is not an immediate issue. If you go on vacation a couple weeks out of the year, you choose where you travel, and if you do choose to go to a non carry state, you do without a couple of weeks. Not a big deal, I suppose.
 
wayneinFL said:
Texas is in a similar situation to FL. We both have about 35 states, which is about all you can get. You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.
Click to expand...

You have to wonder about about WHY some of the states do not recognize another state though. Nevada does not recognize the Texas or Florida CHLs, but they do recognize the Alaska CHL. They don't even recognize a Utah CHL and Utah is right next door.
 
Last edited:
You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.
Click to expand...

But by that logic shouldn't IL with our(as far as I can tell) most stringent requirements mean we'd have the most? Or did I misunderstand what you said/meant?
 
State's rights, US laws....

While I'm pro-gun & support the 2A, Id see a lot of legal issues with a federal law re; concealed carry.
This to me seems to complicate the states rights issues & give those powers over to the federal government. :confused:
If you qualify & get a state issued CCW would that then become the federal requirement to carry a concealed weapon?
As noted, some states or local jurisdictions are not as strict re: concealed carry standards. How would that be enforced or looked at in court?
If I have a use of force event & go on trial, would a "jury of my peers" be fair to me if my state's CCW regulations were not as rigid as the state or place I'm being adjudicated in? :confused:

Some are comparing it to LEOSA. The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. This isn't a bill, but a US law. Signed by President Bush & later modified by President Obama(to include military retirees who served in LE positions).
I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison for a # of reasons but I do say the LEOSA is worth it to those retired cops or federal agents who choose to use it.
I, for one, could live with the system that's in place now. Having the federal government get into the CCW business seems un-needed at this point.

Clyde
 
ClydeFrog said:
Some are comparing it to LEOSA. The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. This isn't a bill, but a US law. Signed by President Bush & later modified by President Obama(to include military retirees who served in LE positions).
Click to expand...
???

Are you not aware that laws become laws by being introduced as bills in the House or the Senate, where they are discussed and voted on? Only if a bill is passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the President does it become a law.

Bills are just pieces of paper. They have no force and effect. Not ever.

The LEOSA began as a bill -- House bill HR 218, IIRC. It became a law only after it was voted in, passed, and signed by the President. It is now a law -- not a bill.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top