States Reciprocating

BarryLee · July 22, 2011, 03:01 PM

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.

**Spats McGee** · July 22, 2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryLee

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.

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."

chasep255 · July 22, 2011, 04:43 PM

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.

Don H · July 22, 2011, 05:55 PM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 22, 2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarryLee

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.

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.

Pahoo · July 22, 2011, 07:00 PM

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 !!!

JerryM · July 22, 2011, 07:09 PM

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

thallub · July 22, 2011, 07:20 PM

Quote:

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.

Same here. Strange that some states rights advocates like the idea of the federal gov't getting involved in concealed carry.

hermannr · July 22, 2011, 07:22 PM

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.

Don H · July 22, 2011, 08:26 PM

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.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 22, 2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pahoo

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.

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.

BarryLee · July 22, 2011, 11:08 PM

Quote:

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want the feds to get involved in another aspect of firearms usage.

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.

MLeake · July 22, 2011, 11:35 PM

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.

BarryLee · July 22, 2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

I can't get an SC license unless I buy property in SC.

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?

Paul B. · July 26, 2011, 04:06 PM

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_ca...city_maps.html

Paul B.

ClayInTx · July 26, 2011, 04:31 PM

It can all be blamed on Georgia Tech and Clemson.

brickeyee · July 26, 2011, 04:31 PM

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.

**Tom Servo** · July 26, 2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

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?

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.

jeepman4804 · July 26, 2011, 05:36 PM

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.

Don H · July 26, 2011, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul B.

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.

Is there a federal statute mandating that states recognize each other's drivers licenses?

July 22, 2011, 03:01 PM	#1
BarryLee Senior Member Join Date: July 29, 2010 Location: The ATL (OTP) Posts: 3,946	States Reciprocating 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. __________________ A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

July 22, 2011, 05:55 PM	#4
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	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. __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

July 22, 2011, 07:00 PM	#6
Pahoo Senior Member Join Date: February 16, 2006 Location: IOWA Posts: 8,783	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 !!! __________________ 'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.

July 22, 2011, 07:09 PM	#7
JerryM Senior Member Join Date: April 4, 1999 Location: New Mexico Posts: 1,889	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 __________________ Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

July 22, 2011, 08:26 PM	#10
Don H Senior Member Join Date: May 8, 2000 Location: SLC,Utah Posts: 2,704	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. __________________ Don http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/forum/

July 22, 2011, 04:43 PM	#3
chasep255 Senior Member Join Date: December 21, 2009 Location: NJ Posts: 727	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.

July 22, 2011, 07:22 PM	#9
hermannr Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2011 Posts: 730	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.

July 22, 2011, 11:35 PM	#13
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	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.

July 26, 2011, 04:06 PM	#15
Paul B. Senior Member Join Date: March 28, 1999 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 3,802	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_ca...city_maps.html Paul B. __________________ COMPROMISE IS NOT AN OPTION!

July 26, 2011, 04:31 PM	#16
ClayInTx Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2009 Location: Texas Posts: 1,066	It can all be blamed on Georgia Tech and Clemson. __________________ . No people should have to fear the will of their government; all governments should have to fear the will of their people.

July 26, 2011, 04:31 PM	#17
brickeyee Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2004 Posts: 3,351	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.

July 26, 2011, 05:36 PM	#19
jeepman4804 Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2008 Posts: 216	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.