National Reciprocity part Deux
- Thread starter swinokur
- Start date
Looking at the bill, it looks like you could simply get a Florida (or Utah) non-resident permit, then be set in Illinois.
Don, sorry for the inaccurate language. I didn't realize Utah had it together so well.
That'll be the big hurdle. Keep an eye on this one, and watch for a committee assignment. If you've got a representative on it, start calling and writing!
Permissive States.... Like Idaho?
DD214 was all that I needed to "prove" proficiency. My wife took a hunters safety course, eons ago. No documentation.
Concealed carry without any permit anywhere outside of city limits. Open carry without any permit, everywhere.
Of course, there is the usual no carry in sterile areas of airports; Federal buildings; Courts and Jails/Prisons.
Heck, when I worked for a local grocery store, I even had permission from the local school board to carry concealed in the schools.
In short, there are so many differences between the States, that I don't know how a generalization can be made.
DD214 was all that I needed to "prove" proficiency. My wife took a hunters safety course, eons ago. No documentation.
Concealed carry without any permit anywhere outside of city limits. Open carry without any permit, everywhere.
Of course, there is the usual no carry in sterile areas of airports; Federal buildings; Courts and Jails/Prisons.
Heck, when I worked for a local grocery store, I even had permission from the local school board to carry concealed in the schools.
In short, there are so many differences between the States, that I don't know how a generalization can be made.
That statement, in regard to concealed carry, contradicts Idaho's law on concealed carry....
Q: May I carry a weapon on my person in Idaho?
A: Yes, you may carry a weapon on your person in Idaho as long as the weapon is clearly visible. You may not carry a concealed weapon unless you have a concealed weapons permit.
http://www.ag.idaho.gov/concealedWe...ml#May I carry a weapon on my person in Idaho
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But you haven't quoted or cited the law. You have cited a FAQ, and FAQ sites are notorious for summarizing in ways that obfuscate what laws actually say.RETG said:
What's the actual statute?
I heard the same concerns last year regarding incorporation. Some of the conversations were quite interesting.
Some folks were worried about continued federal encroachment upon states' authority to manage their own affairs, but I disagreed. It is one of the jobs of the federal government to make sure that states observe some baseline of civil liberties. That includes the right to keep and bear arms.
That said, this bill would simply require that Maryland honor Indiana permits and so on. It does not propose or require a federally-issued permit.
As such, I don't see this as a blow to the 10th Amendment at all.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I think I just resolved the conflict between the statements of Al Norris and RETG.
The statute is 18-3302 and can be read here: http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2005/18ftoc/180330002.html
The basic rule is in Section 7, which states:
But the exceptions come farther down in Section 12. Item (d) under Section 12 is what I think Al Norris had in mind:
This strikes me as a lot like the "other lawful purposes" exception to the Federal law that prohibits firearms on any Federal premises. The law has an exception for "other lawful purposes," which a reasonable person would argue legal carry for self-defense is ... but I'm not willing to become the test case, and I haven't seen any other volunteers. Al, is it your view that anything you might be doing outdoors constitutes "other lawful activity," and that's why you think concealed carry is allowed without a permit outside of the cities? Like the Federal law, I don't think I'd willingly volunteer to be the test case on this one.
The statute is 18-3302 and can be read here: http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2005/18ftoc/180330002.html
The basic rule is in Section 7, which states:
Basic law, then = No concealed carry without a permit. RETG-1 /AN -0
But the exceptions come farther down in Section 12. Item (d) under Section 12 is what I think Al Norris had in mind:
So concealed carry without a permit IS legal outside of the cities ... BUT, only when engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or "other lawful outdoor activity." RETG-1/2 / AN-1/2
This strikes me as a lot like the "other lawful purposes" exception to the Federal law that prohibits firearms on any Federal premises. The law has an exception for "other lawful purposes," which a reasonable person would argue legal carry for self-defense is ... but I'm not willing to become the test case, and I haven't seen any other volunteers. Al, is it your view that anything you might be doing outdoors constitutes "other lawful activity," and that's why you think concealed carry is allowed without a permit outside of the cities? Like the Federal law, I don't think I'd willingly volunteer to be the test case on this one.
RETG, here is the direct wording of the Statute in question:
Title 18, Chapter 33, section 2, paragraph 12, subparagraph d (18-3302(12)(d)):
By case law, that is interpreted exactly how it sounds. Sight seeing? Camping? Hiking? Mere Traveling? Yes to any and all.
While it's nice to rely upon the AG's website FAQ, it's better to actually know the statutes and case law behind them.
Coincidently this applies to vehicle carry as well. 18-3302(9) reads:
I don't "think" I'm correct in my interpretation, I know.
Title 18, Chapter 33, section 2, paragraph 12, subparagraph d (18-3302(12)(d)):
(12) The requirement to secure a license to carry a concealed weapon under this section shall not apply to the following persons:
... or other lawful outdoor activity ...(d) Any person outside the limits of or confines of any city while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping or other lawful outdoor activity;
By case law, that is interpreted exactly how it sounds. Sight seeing? Camping? Hiking? Mere Traveling? Yes to any and all.
While it's nice to rely upon the AG's website FAQ, it's better to actually know the statutes and case law behind them.
Coincidently this applies to vehicle carry as well. 18-3302(9) reads:
(9) While in any motor vehicle, inside the limits or confines of any city, a person shall not carry a concealed weapon on or about his person without a license to carry a concealed weapon.
... inside city limits ... The exception here, is that case law defines "city Limits" as those limits incorporated or in the case of unincorporated villages and towns, those areas encompassed by road signage denoting city limits.I don't "think" I'm correct in my interpretation, I know.
First of all, I was talking about activities other than hunting, fishing, etc.
But, now there is that great statement known as "lawful outdoor activity."
Reminds me a lot of the "lawful carrying of firearms" statement under US Code Title 18; § 930 (3)
Someone really needs to define “lawful” in regard to both of these statements.
Mr. Norris, please accept my apology. I did not realize that the Idaho State AG's website was incorrect. When I am personally asked about carrying a concealed or an open weapon in another State, I tell the person(s) to view the AG's website or contact the State Police for that particular State. Believe it or not, I am asked that question quite a bit.
I do know the laws in the State I work in, since it is my job to know what the laws are in regard to the carrying of a weapon on Federal lands, and since we follow State Laws, I need to know what those laws are. However, I do not make it a job to learn all the different laws for all the other 49 States in regard to carrying a handgun (or other weapons).
Now, it appears, at least for the State of Idaho, the AG's website is incorrect, and cannot be trusted. I base that on the fact if one statement on the AG's website is incorrect, then who knows how many other statements on that website are incorrect. So, if asked about Idaho, I guess I won't make any more statements about visiting a website that has incorrect information posted. Which, I will add is good to know. Do not want someone to get into trouble due to my suggestion to view a website that is incorrect.
So, if I understand correctly, if a person is carrying a weapon under their coat while walking down a country lane, and the wind blows open their coat and an officer of the law sees the handgun, then the coat covers it back up, and the person does not have a concealed weapons permit issued by Idaho or issued by a State that Idaho recognizes, they are not committing a crime. It is considered a 'lawful activity" and no permit is required.
To be honest, I am really glad I do not have to worry about these state laws when traveling. And don’t have to worry about Idaho since the campgrounds I want to visit don’t like my dog.
But, now there is that great statement known as "lawful outdoor activity."
Reminds me a lot of the "lawful carrying of firearms" statement under US Code Title 18; § 930 (3)
Someone really needs to define “lawful” in regard to both of these statements. Mr. Norris, please accept my apology. I did not realize that the Idaho State AG's website was incorrect. When I am personally asked about carrying a concealed or an open weapon in another State, I tell the person(s) to view the AG's website or contact the State Police for that particular State. Believe it or not, I am asked that question quite a bit.
I do know the laws in the State I work in, since it is my job to know what the laws are in regard to the carrying of a weapon on Federal lands, and since we follow State Laws, I need to know what those laws are. However, I do not make it a job to learn all the different laws for all the other 49 States in regard to carrying a handgun (or other weapons).
Now, it appears, at least for the State of Idaho, the AG's website is incorrect, and cannot be trusted. I base that on the fact if one statement on the AG's website is incorrect, then who knows how many other statements on that website are incorrect. So, if asked about Idaho, I guess I won't make any more statements about visiting a website that has incorrect information posted. Which, I will add is good to know. Do not want someone to get into trouble due to my suggestion to view a website that is incorrect.
So, if I understand correctly, if a person is carrying a weapon under their coat while walking down a country lane, and the wind blows open their coat and an officer of the law sees the handgun, then the coat covers it back up, and the person does not have a concealed weapons permit issued by Idaho or issued by a State that Idaho recognizes, they are not committing a crime. It is considered a 'lawful activity" and no permit is required.
To be honest, I am really glad I do not have to worry about these state laws when traveling. And don’t have to worry about Idaho since the campgrounds I want to visit don’t like my dog.
youngunz4life
New member
please keep us posted on this 'law'
RETG, no apologies necessary.
The one thing I've noticed, is that in almost all cases, a States AG FAQ on firearms leaves a lot to be desired.
Which is why, when I travel to Utah, or Wyoming, or Colorado, etc, I visit the States website that lists the actual statutes. I review them to make sure I am compliant in the law for the States I'm crossing and the State I intend to visit.
PM me on which campgrounds you are unhappy with. I may know of alternatives...
The one thing I've noticed, is that in almost all cases, a States AG FAQ on firearms leaves a lot to be desired.
Which is why, when I travel to Utah, or Wyoming, or Colorado, etc, I visit the States website that lists the actual statutes. I review them to make sure I am compliant in the law for the States I'm crossing and the State I intend to visit.
PM me on which campgrounds you are unhappy with. I may know of alternatives...
Just a cursory reading would indicate that this law would prohibit unlicensed CC in states like Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona where it is not legal. Am I right?
Never trust the feds, especially with the current administration. They might pass this and, in two years, enact national standards for the CHL. Dangerous.
Never trust the feds, especially with the current administration. They might pass this and, in two years, enact national standards for the CHL. Dangerous.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Neither Vermont, Alaska nor Arizona requires a permit to carry concealed. I don't understand your question.TexasFats said:
The proposed law does not create a license, so how could the Feds follow it up with standards for "the" CHL? All this law does is tell the states they must honor licenses issued by other states.
youngunz4life
New member
only WI and IL would be off limits for a person with the National CCW.
it is a good roughdraft; I think some changes will end up being made and/or tweaked to address certain situations: examples - nonresident permits, living in a state where it is extremely difficult to get a CCW such as hawaii, etc, etc.
Let me say right out, that this bill will never be signed, as a stand alone bill, should it be passed by the House and the Senate. Another similar bill (think the upcoming Thune amendment, but worded similar or even exactly like this one), added as an amendment to a must pass piece of legislation (like the upcoming debt ceiling) will pass and will be signed.
Having said the above, let's examine this bills wording.
What the above says is that any citizen who has both a government issued ID and a permit issued by a State, may carry in any State except in the State of residence. The law does not say you have to have a permit issued by your State.
This is important. Because someone from (say) IL who has an IL drivers license (government ID) and has a (say) Florida permit to carry concealed, may carry in any other State that also has statutory carry with a license or permit.
If you don't have a permit to carry in your State (may issue States), you may not carry in your home State.
You will be subject to the same laws of the State in which you carry, that the residents of that State may carry.
Various States have restricted permits. By this law, you will be able to carry in the same manner as someone from that State that has the least restrictive permit available.
Does everyone follow this?
Having said the above, let's examine this bills wording.
Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, ... a person who is not prohibited by Federal law ... and who is carrying [1] a government-issued photographic identification document and [2] a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun ... in any State, other than the State of residence of the person[.]
What the above says is that any citizen who has both a government issued ID and a permit issued by a State, may carry in any State except in the State of residence. The law does not say you have to have a permit issued by your State.
This is important. Because someone from (say) IL who has an IL drivers license (government ID) and has a (say) Florida permit to carry concealed, may carry in any other State that also has statutory carry with a license or permit.
If you don't have a permit to carry in your State (may issue States), you may not carry in your home State.
A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
You will be subject to the same laws of the State in which you carry, that the residents of that State may carry.
In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
Various States have restricted permits. By this law, you will be able to carry in the same manner as someone from that State that has the least restrictive permit available.
Does everyone follow this?
I think so, Al.
If carrying in a bar is forbidden by law in the state I'm visiting, then I can't carry in a bar there. Even if my state does allow me to do so.
If my buddy Fred has a CCW issued in a state which limits him to carrying on Mondays and Thursdays, but that state also issues licenses that allow 7 day carry, when I visit Fred, I can carry all 7 days.
How'd I do?
If carrying in a bar is forbidden by law in the state I'm visiting, then I can't carry in a bar there. Even if my state does allow me to do so.
If my buddy Fred has a CCW issued in a state which limits him to carrying on Mondays and Thursdays, but that state also issues licenses that allow 7 day carry, when I visit Fred, I can carry all 7 days.
How'd I do?
motorhead0922
New member
Would this law make it easier for residents of an anti-gun state to carry? Like a NY resident getting a Utah permit and then being good to go in NY?