States Reciprocating

B

BarryLee

New member
Some states such as Georgia do not require formal training to get a firearms license/permit others such as South Carolina do. It is my understanding this is why these two neighboring states do not reciprocate. I assume that if Georgia added a formal training requirement South Carolina would accept the Georgia License for use when carrying in their state. I do not know for certain, but I assume this situation exist in other states.

So, if you live in a state that does not require training to get a Firearms License/Permit would you be open to your state adding a training requirement if it meant other states would accept your permit? It seems if we ever move toward a national carry permit the training requirement will be an issue.
 
BarryLee said:
So, if you live in a state that does not require training to get a Firearms License/Permit would you be open to your state adding a training requirement if it meant other states would accept your permit? It seems if we ever move toward a national carry permit the training requirement will be an issue.
Click to expand...
My state has a classroom requirement and a (very minimal) proficiency requirement, but not what I'd call "training." Frankly, the thought of national (read "federally-imposed") training requirements is exactly the reason I'm oppossed to a national carry permit.

Edited to add: Ok. I just looked at the Arkansas State Police Rules & Regs on this. Apparently, they call it "training."
 
I would like to see there be both state and national permits. If you get the national one following the national requirement then you can carry anywhere in the country despite state laws. States should also still have the ability to issue state permits with their own requirements which are good for just that state and states which honor it. This way if you don't like the federal regulations then you can still get your state permit.
 
For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want the feds to get involved in another aspect of firearms usage. Perhaps it's because they're doing such a great job where they are involved now.
 
BarryLee said:
So, if you live in a state that does not require training to get a Firearms License/Permit would you be open to your state adding a training requirement if it meant other states would accept your permit? It seems if we ever move toward a national carry permit the training requirement will be an issue.
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. To go that route would mean that EVERY state would have to adopt the most stringent training requirement from the other 49 or the system won't work, and that's a serious imposition. I don't know who is the worst, but I'll use Texas as an example. Not only does the qualification require not just "live fire" sufficient to show that you can put lead down-range without harming yourself or your classmates, it requires an actual scored course of fire at different distances, with a minimum score needed to pass. And then you have to do it all over when it's time for renewal. And it costs $$$ each time you requalify.

There are those, of course, who will say that's not too much to expect if we're going to "allow" someone to carry a gun.

Where does it establish a minimum qualifying score in the 2nd Amendment?

A right is a right. We should not need a permission slip from any state to exercise a right.
 
Last edited:
One size does not fit all !!!

One states acceptance does not depend on what training they get. All that is needed, is that the person has met it's native state's requirements and permit issue. In Iowa, technically, you do not have to meet a training requirement or range qualification but that is only for new applicants. Going a step further, Yes, I think that we need a training requirement as well as range qualification. JMHO ..... ;)



Be Safe !!!
 
Don,
I'm with you on this. The less the Feds get involved the better I like it. I always think that if the Feds can tell the states that they must do it, they can also tell them that they cannot.

I am satisfied to let the states decide which states' license they will recognize.

Jerry
 
For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want the feds to get involved in another aspect of firearms usage. Perhaps it's because they're doing such a great job where they are involved now.
Click to expand...

Same here. Strange that some states rights advocates like the idea of the federal gov't getting involved in concealed carry.
 
No to FED envolvement, they have their hand in too many things now.

No to any manditory training.

There is no training requirement in WA, never has, never will. Voluntary training is one thing, manditory is a totally different thing. There are several states that accept your permit, but your state may not recognize theirs.

There should be no CPL needed, but as we do have the states requiring a permit, it should be accepted in every state, just like your drivers license,,,voluntarily.
 
I've never seen a study or other data that suggests that 'x' amount of mandatory training or range time makes any difference at all in the CCW (or even in the open carry) world. Lacking definitive evidence that training actually makes a difference, what purpose does mandatory training serve, other than giving someone a warm and fuzzy feeling?

If anyone has access to such a study that demonstrates that CCWers with mandatory training and/or range qualification are safer than CCWers without training or range qualification, I would greatly appreciate it if you would post a link.
 
Pahoo said:
One states acceptance does not depend on what training they get. All that is needed, is that the person has met it's native state's requirements and permit issue.
Click to expand...
You need only meet your state's criteria/requirements to get your home state license/permit. This thread is about getting EVERY state to honor licenses/permits from ALL 49 other states. If you spend any time reviewing reciprocity between/among the various states, you'll find that it varies tremendously. Some states will simply honor a license/permit from any other state ... no questions asked. Some states won't recognize anything besides their own.

In between, there are the various states that have entered into formal reciprocity agreements with other states. And frequently, the stumbling block to greater reciprocity is that State 'A' has a requirement (probably in statute) that they can enter into a reciprocity agreement only with states whose training requirements are "substantially equal to" their own. So, one one hand you have Pennsylvania that doesn't require any training to get a license. On the other hand you have Texas, that requires a very long class (don't remember if it's one day or two days), followed by a full range qualification session with a minimum passing score.

In seeking full national reciprocity, it is unlikely that the states with very strict requirements would be happy to relax their strict standards, so more likely it would have to go the other way and the states with no training or minimal training requirements would have to become more strict.

I don't regard it as a good thing if my state were to suddenly introduce a considerably more stringent (and more expensive) set of criteria just because some state on the other side of the country thinks that's a good idea.
 
Last edited:
For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want the feds to get involved in another aspect of firearms usage.
Click to expand...

Yes, I too agree that Federal involvement in licensing/permitting would be a bad idea. I guess what I was really thinking about in the OP was some sort of consensus between the various States that would result in having your permit recognized in most if not all of them.
 
The problem I have with South Carolina, as an example, is that they won't recognize nor issue out-of-state licenses. My out-of-state Florida license is no good in SC, and I can't get an SC license unless I buy property in SC.

So, I have met the normal training requirement for SC, but my GA license isn't honored there...

It's a catch-22.
 
I can't get an SC license unless I buy property in SC.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is frustrating for me we travel over there several times a year and I would like to have the option to carry. I understand that places like New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, California and a few others may never recognize a Georgia permit, but it seems like GA and SC could work out something. However, I guess that goes back to my OP do I want to give up just a little more freedom to be able to carry in South Carolina?
 
I would think that the feds would not have to be heavily involved in a national right to carry. Just pass a simple law that states, if "__________" issues you a CCW permit then it's good in all 50 states. No other involvment is needed. Be the same as a driver's license which is recognized in all 50 states. Only fair and right. FWIW, if the link works, here is a map that shows which states recognize other states permits. AFAIK it's up to date other than it may not show nevada honoring Arizona's permit. That changed on July 1, 2011.


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

Paul B.
 
Before Virginia passed 'shall issue' for CHPs, a number of counties and cities refused to issue ANY permits under the 'will issue' laws in effect and pointed to training as the reason they refused.

The combination of 'shall issue,' and state preemption of all possession, carry, training, & purchase laws put a halt to the old arbitrary rules from each county and city.

While more training than the mandated minimum is a good idea, we have not had a whole lot of problems with the present rules.

Unlike all the predictions, there has not been 'blood in the streets' and road rage shootings.
 
However, I guess that goes back to my OP do I want to give up just a little more freedom to be able to carry in South Carolina?
Click to expand...
There's more to it than the training requirement. As MLeake mentioned, they won't accept out-of-state permits from states that do have such a requirement. Even if Georgia adopted such a system, there's no guarantee South Carolina would play ball.

Getting CCW passed in there was a struggle at the beginning, and there are still some weird things about their carry laws.
 
Absolutely not! One more thing to go wrong. This is another reason my duty weapon does not have any safeties. It would be very unlikely that any safety would malfunction, but it could happen and the one time could be the difference between going home and a body bag.
 
Paul B. said:
I would think that the feds would not have to be heavily involved in a national right to carry. Just pass a simple law that states, if "__________" issues you a CCW permit then it's good in all 50 states. No other involvment is needed. Be the same as a driver's license which is recognized in all 50 states.
Click to expand...
Is there a federal statute mandating that states recognize each other's drivers licenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top