The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 10, 2014, 07:52 AM   #1
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,810
Constitutional CCW Reciprcity

From Massad on all of us contacting our reps in DC and ask for support for the following,
Quote:
AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME
Posted: 07 Feb 2014 05:46 PM PST
In the last entry, I promised to discuss some historical matters here, unless something more newsworthy came up. Something certainly did.
I recently received the following from the office of Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. A career prosecutor with a stellar record, and always fair to armed citizens and cops alike, this former state Attorney General probably has a better handle on real world crime and punishment and justice issues than anyone else in the United States Senate. She is sponsoring Senator Cornyn’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014. Here’s what she has to say:
“Dear Colleague—
“We ask that you join us in cosponsoring The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014 (S. 1908)—critical legislation that will protect the Second Amendment rights of our constituents while they are travelling or living away from home. The United States Constitution guarantees every American the right to travel freely from state-to-state, and our fundamental right to self-defense should be fully protected when we do so.
“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 would allow individuals with the right to carry a concealed firearm in their home state to exercise that right in any other state that also allows that practice. Under this legislation, persons concealed carrying outside of their home state would still be required to abide by the rules and regulations of the state in which they are physically present. In other words, this legislation would treat concealed carry permits just like drivers’ licenses. For instance, if you are licensed to drive in State A, but are driving through State B, you are required to follow the posted speed limits and other rules for operating a motor vehicle in State B. This legislation works the same way with respect to concealed carry rights.
“The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of2014 fully protects state sovereignty, because it does not establish national standards for the practice of concealed carry, does not allow for a national concealed carry permit, and does not allow individuals to circumvent their home state’s permitting laws. Additionally, this legislation would not allow individuals to carry firearms who are prohibited from doing so under current federal law.
“The practice of concealed carry increases public safety, protects fundamental constitutional rights, encourages responsible gun ownership, and is now allowed in all fifty states. We ask that you join us in strengthening the Second Amendment by cosponsoring the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2014.”
Folks, your blogger here thinks national concealed carry reciprocity is long overdue. Please reach out to those who represent you on Capitol Hill and strongly urge them to join Senator Ayotte in getting this important, life-saving legislation passed into law.
Share or Bookmark
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 09:49 AM   #2
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,778
It all sounds good at first, but I'm absolutely against it. People in states that requires 40 hours of gun safety training and hands on range fire testing might get upset that outsiders aren't obliged to endure the same level of assessment. In time, pressure would come from the states and federal government to "standardize" the requirements for carry. Do we really want the federal government to take this control? Since 2A is a constitutional right (unlike driving, which is only a privilege), all states need to enact constitutional carry.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 10:34 AM   #3
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 653
"allow individuals with the right to carry a concealed firearm in their home state to exercise that right in any other state that also allows that practice."

Dont we already get that thru state to state reciprocity???

I would think a better use of our political chips would be a Federal reciprocity bill. One that allow anyone with a concealed weapon permit to legally carry in any state they visit

As an example. I live in Co and have a ccw permit issued there. As i travel to Nv to visit family im good to go (Nv honors Co permits), but if i travel to Calif to visit family, do some diving or just go to Disneyland. I cant carry my pistol

Im thinking a civilian CCW bill like the LEO SB218. That allows LEOs to carry in any state
Sharkbite is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 10:46 AM   #4
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,898
Quote:
Dont we already get that thru state to state reciprocity???
We do, and what do we have to give up to get to Carry in NYC (with Federal Reciprocity)? Anybody here remember FOPA of 1986? That was supposed to protect travellers passing through- that hasn't stopped NYPD from arresting folks whose flights were cancelled and were forced to overnight in the Big Wormy Apple. We traded private ownership of newly manufactured full auto guns for that.

Give them a Law, and they'll find a way to screw you with it.

IMO, the Fed.gov is into too much stuff as it is. They are on the edge of financial collapse because they are doing so much more than the founders laid out for them ....... they can't manage the stuff they are doing now, let alone more ......

Let them into CCW, and they'll "standardize" your ability to get a permit anywhere right out of reasonable attainability.

NO.
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/
jimbob86 is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 10:49 AM   #5
2ndsojourn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 15, 2013
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 670
It's an improvement over what's in effect now. But good luck trying to get us in NJ signed on.

(Note: The article states that concealed carry is allowed in all fifty states. But in reality, NJ has a de facto ban. Only LE and armored car couriers are issued permits.)
2ndsojourn is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 10:55 AM   #6
noelf2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2008
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,778
Quote:
Dont we already get that thru state to state reciprocity???
Not in a ubiquitous way. Not all states have reciprocity with all states. Most only have reciprocity with states that have similar requirements.

Quote:
I would think a better use of our political chips would be a Federal reciprocity bill. One that allow anyone with a concealed weapon permit to legally carry in any state they visit
You really want to give that control to the Federal Government? Besides, there are federal laws against marijuana, however, some states don't recognize those laws and the feds are unable to enforce them anyway. What makes you think states with very restrictive carry requirements will allow the federal law to be exercised? The state can still arrest you if you break their state law. The federal government is finding that it is getting harder for federal law to preempt state law.
__________________
Liberty and freedom often offends those who understand neither.
noelf2 is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 11:56 AM   #7
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 653
Oh believe me... I dont want any more Federal interference either but this proposal doesn't get us ANYTHING

A version of SB218 for CCW holders would at least make it the same throughout all the states. I wouldnt have to stop at the "border" to unload and case my selfdefense handgun to enter certain states

Being legal as i stand on one side of an invisible line and a criminal if i step over is just ludicrous. I lived is a town in Nv that bordered Calif. Drive 10 min from my house in the wrong direction and im a criminal....really????
Sharkbite is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 01:51 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,399
We've been over this in prior threads when the legislation has come up in the past. Here's a quick summary of the problems with it.

First off, its chances at passage are dismal at best. Representatives from states like New York, California, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusetts have enough seats (and influential seats on committees) in the House to kill it. And kill it they will, because they don't want folks from more permissive states flaunting their laws.

The second problem arises when someone from out of state doesn't know every wrinkle of local law. Consider Illinois' ban on carry aboard public transit. Folks are going to get busted for things they don't know are illegal, and this law doesn't protect them.

The third problem is that restrictive states will realize that, and they're going to pass all sorts of onerous local regulations and restrictions to make carry harder. This causes more problems for local citizens and creates a chilling effect all around.

This issue is something that needs to be hashed out by state governments, or in the courts. A single feel-good piece of legislation isn't going to solve it.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 01:54 PM   #9
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 653
STOP RAINING ON MY DAY!!!

Lol. We can dream cant we?
Sharkbite is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 02:25 PM   #10
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
IMHO, any sort of federally-created concealed carry reciprocity is the camel's nose in the tent. As I see it, once the federal government mandates CCW reciprocity, the more restrictive states (most of which have lots of votes in the HoR) will start screaming for federal standards for all CCLs. I have absolutely no interest in allowing Feinstein or her ilk any vote whatsoever in what standards my state uses for determining who gets a CHCL, especially since I have no say inw whether or not such folks get re-elected.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 02:57 PM   #11
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 716
Agreed that this would be better off being dealt with at the state level and in the courts. Also, even if the feds mandate something such as national CCW there would have to be some serious teeth in the bill to ensure it is followed to keep some states from basically not complying in some for or fashion.

I would much prefer the states handle it, and the feds stay out of it, which is why I would contact my elected reps to voice that same opinion if this proceeds any farther. May not do any good, but there is a reason why I have made a choice not to live in a more restrictive state.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 10, 2014 at 04:16 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 03:16 PM   #12
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharkbite
Dont we already get that thru state to state reciprocity???
No ... not even close.

My home state has no reciprocity with any other state. A (very) few states unilaterally recognize my home state permit, but my state recognizes no others. I currently hold licenses/permits from four different states, and that allows me to carry (legally) in approximately 33 states.

I see zero downside to this proposal. It's way overdue. The notion that the states with stricter laws will somehow "force" the states with less strict laws to become more strict doesn't compute. It's probably more likely that it would go the other way, as people who live in the strict states whine to their state legislators about how unfair it is that visitors don't have to do 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to carry, but they (the residents) do.

Do you really think that the Pennsylvania legislature is going to require mandatory training for carry permits if they start getting letters from Chicago?
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 03:40 PM   #13
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,399
Quote:
It's probably more likely that it would go the other way, as people who live in the strict states whine to their state legislators about how unfair it is that visitors don't have to do 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to carry, but they (the residents) do.
But they already make those complaints in a way, and the legislatures of those states haven't budged. Politicians in restrictive states aren't going to see out-of-towners with guns as examples; they're going to see them as problems.

Quote:
Do you really think that the Pennsylvania legislature is going to require mandatory training for carry permits if they start getting letters from Chicago?
No, but will Pennsylvania help defend one of their citizens who made the mistake of boarding a bus in Chicago with a gun on? Doubtful. That's one of the problems that worries me.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 03:41 PM   #14
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Do you really think that the Pennsylvania legislature is going to require mandatory training for carry permits if they start getting letters from Chicago?
No. I think that the federal government will mandate a national standard for any state to issue CCLs. I think that representatives from stricter states will push for federal standards in line with what they have at home. (Remember when the federal gov't withheld road money until states raised their drinking ages to 21?) Louisiana had awful roads for years after that, because it refused to raise its drinking age, IIRC.

Let's look at just a few of the more restrictive states in the House of Representatives:
California: 53 votes
New York: 27 votes
New Jersey: 12
Total: 92

Looking at a sampling of the less restrictive states:
Texas: 36
Arizona: 9
Pennsylvania: 18
Florida: 27
Total: 90

So, that comes pretty close to (but not quite) even. It took "us" an extra state to get there, though, and we haven't even considered the Senate.

So, let's take a look at who has the most HoR votes:
California: 53
Texas: 36
New York: 27
Florida: 27
Illinois: 18
Pennsylvania: 18
Ohio: 16
Michigan: 14

Source: http://www.ehdp.com/vitalnet/reps.htm

So far, that looks pretty evenly split, but there are lots of states that have only 5-8 votes. My state has a whopping 4 Reps. Arkansas would have to find alliances with a LOT of other states to block passage of federal standards.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 07:31 PM   #15
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
The second problem arises when someone from out of state doesn't know every wrinkle of local law. Consider Illinois' ban on carry aboard public transit. Folks are going to get busted for things they don't know are illegal, and this law doesn't protect them.
That will always be an issue, whether we have national or state-by-state reciprocity.

The main problem I can see with a federal reciprocity bill is that there will be a push for national standards in training or or vetting applicants. Thew only workaround I could see is possibly a separate set of standards. For example, there are different types of driver's licenses. Why not set up a separate plan for a nationwide license, yet allow states to license their own residents under a lesser standard?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 08:22 PM   #16
Sharkbite
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 653
The LEO sb218 standard aint that tough folks. Id happily qual to those standards and could live with people that could not being declined a permit.

Before you go all 2nd ammendment on me. We are talking about a level of skill with a deadly instrument. Not unlike a driving test. Jeeez i can hear it now. Driving is a privilige. Carrying is a RIGHT. Ok... I get it

What im saying is if you cant qual on a fairly BASIC shooting test. Maybe i dont want you banging off rounds in a parking lot cause you were getting mugged and hitting one of my loved ones

I work HARD to keep up my skill sets. Not just with firearms but emptyhands, blades AND driving

Ive seen the results of some of the CCW training out there and quite frankly some of those folks scare me
Sharkbite is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 08:28 PM   #17
L2R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 232
it all sounds good

but so did the Constitution. And those who wrote it were thorough, thoughtful and brilliant. Yet Our last generation of politicians have managed to tear it apart piece by piece.

No matter cleverly written, this will take a turn for the worse. It will end up being a nation wide cc restriction to match the most restrictive law so that no one will have to worry about accidently becoming unlawful.

Right off the bat, people will start buying Ma or Ca legal weapons just to be safe and off we go down the slippery slope.
__________________
L2R


Evil cannot be reduced thru Legislation!
L2R is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 08:52 PM   #18
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,399
Quote:
Ive seen the results of some of the CCW training out there and quite frankly some of those folks scare me
So have I. However, I've watched folks qualified to carry via LEOSA shoot, and some of them give me pause as well.

Exactly what level of training would qualify? Who decides the criteria? How long does it take, how easy is it to acquire, and how much does it cost?

I know of no other right burdened with such provisions. Claiming that we need hurdles because a few folks might abuse it is the kind of argument our opponents make. We don't need to do their job for them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 11:15 PM   #19
guruatbol
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 242
There are a few reasons why I say NO!

1- Feds = more regulation
2- States rights
3- We have the right to open carry in those states that prohibit concealed carry.

For the gentleman from CO. If you travel through Clark Co. NV you are prohibited from CCW. They do not recognize any other CCW than NV.

For the standardization, I say no! I live in Utah and don't require a CCW as a LEO retired, but the wife does. Utah has one of, if not the easiest CCW permit to get. For this reason the states that are very strict in who they give them to and the training they make them get, (which IMHO is a good idea. More training is a good thing and if some are not told to do it they have the right granted them by their citizens to require this sort of thing in order to feel like they are keeping their citizens safe.

Do I agree with states with these beliefs? Yes and no.

No, as I believe in less government involvement in our rights.

Yes, because of what I said above, some people will carry because they want to be cool and not train so they can be affective. Those sort of people get others hurt.

Once you draw down on a person it is for some very easy to pull the trigger and for others very hard. Having been there done that, I know for me it is a hard thing to do and I want to give that person every opportunity to stop and not get shot, however I will and I repeat I will pull the trigger when I feel it is needed!

Sorry for the rant, but any more laws regulating anything else majes me just want to toss my cookies!

Mel
__________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Thomas Jefferson
It matters not what color the cat is, but that the cat gets the mouse. - Some Asian
guruatbol is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 11:27 PM   #20
Buzzard Bait
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 338
whats the difference?

This may result in me getting a spanking but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, What's the difference between a CCL and a drivers license? I can drive coast to coast with my drivers license I only need to change it if I change my state of residence. Doesn't the constitution require the states to recognize the laws of other states? I can see if I move I need a new license for that state but passing threw? Seems like they should have to honor my home state license whether it's a drivers license or a CCL, I know it's not but sure seems like it should be.
Also does this line just not count in all this?
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
Well several states offer CCL? What about the rest of them?
bb
one more thing In reality I HAVE A CONSTTUTIONAL RIGHT TO THE FIREARM no such right to the car or drivers license its a privilege.

Last edited by Buzzard Bait; February 10, 2014 at 11:36 PM. Reason: one more thing
Buzzard Bait is online now  
Old February 11, 2014, 02:14 AM   #21
wayneinFL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
What im saying is if you cant qual on a fairly BASIC shooting test. Maybe i dont want you banging off rounds in a parking lot cause you were getting mugged and hitting one of my loved ones
Everyone trains to the situations they expect to encounter, and in the parameters they feel comfortable performing in. You might be comfortable hitting a bank robber at 25 yards in a stressful situation. Some old man might want a belly gun to literally put in someone's belly if he's robbed at the ATM. Does he really need to qualify to the same standard you do?

But this is where I'm getting at with the concept of different levels of licenses. If you drive a Honda in Florida, you get a class E driver's license and you're good to go. If you want to drive a semi all over the country, you need a Class A license, and some federal regulations kick in- for example, you need a DOT physical.

Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?
wayneinFL is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 07:17 AM   #22
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 5,126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzard Bait
This may result in me getting a spanking but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, What's the difference between a CCL and a drivers license? I can drive coast to coast with my drivers license I only need to change it if I change my state of residence. Doesn't the constitution require the states to recognize the laws of other states? I can see if I move I need a new license for that state but passing threw? Seems like they should have to honor my home state license whether it's a drivers license or a CCL, I know it's not but sure seems like it should be.
Also does this line just not count in all this?
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States"
Well several states offer CCL? What about the rest of them?
No, the Constitution does not require recognition of other states' DLs. That's done through the Driver License Compact, voluntarily adopted by states. If you'll: (a) check this out; and (b) run a search on this forum for "privileges and immunities," you'll find lots of information.
__________________
A gunfight is not the time to learn new skills.

If you ever have a real need for more than a couple of magazines, your problem is not a shortage of magazines. It's a shortage of people on your side of the argument. -- Art Eatman
Spats McGee is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 08:06 AM   #23
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,810
Quote:
The second problem arises when someone from out of state doesn't know every wrinkle of local law. Consider Illinois' ban on carry aboard public transit. Folks are going to get busted for things they don't know are illegal, and this law doesn't protect them.
Boy, did open the can of worms starting this thread.
With the above quote as example and indulge me a bit.
This is with regards to motor vehicle law.
I obtained my DL in NYC. NY law is when you make a turn onto a 4 lane road (2 each way) left turn end you turn in the left lane and the same for right turns end in right lane.
Now the rub, here in FLA the law reads what ever lane you finish your turn in is o-kee-dokie and legal.
My point no matter what we do and where we travel we will never be totally versed in the law.
I understand MV law violations result in tickets and firearms result in possible jail time.
All I wanted to do with this thread was share what was sent to me.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 12:45 PM   #24
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,503
Quote:
Originally Posted by wayneinFL
Why not have a plain old state license that covers you in your state and similar states- then add to that system a national license to cover all 50 states, but requires additional training?
The more I think about this, the better it sounds. In fact, I'll take the idea further, and throw this out there for consideration.

I propose a two-tiered license system, which I'll call Class A for the national license, and Class B for the state license.

My hypothetical law would make all current state-issued CHL's into Class B licenses by default, and prohibit the Feds from enacting any regulations affecting Class B licenses. No state would be required to honor a Class B license from another state, but all would be free to do so by choice. In effect, Class B would preserve the existing reciprocity system with no changes whatsoever.

Standards for the new Class A license would be agreed upon by a committee drawn from various different states.

The new federal Class A license would be honored in any and every state. No state would be required to issue it, but a citizen or lawful permanent resident of a non-issuing state would be permitted to obtain one elsewhere. I suggest making Class A licenses shall-issue, and adding a clause allowing a licensee to carry ONE unregistered handgun into a state that mandates handgun registration, provided that the gun is of a type that residents of the state can lawfully possess under normal circumstances. I also suggest making Class A licensees exempt from the out-of-state "Gotcha Clause" in the GFSZA, but perhaps this is REALLY wishful thinking.

I find this proposal to be a shockingly logical alternative to allowing the proverbial camel's nose in the tent for ALL CHL's.

Discuss.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old February 11, 2014, 01:06 PM   #25
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,361
The problem with your class A license is simple. The committee would set standards so high that it would make the license impossible except for the very well off or well connected. As is the case in many anti gun states now.

Once you get a politically appointed committee involved Things will go down hill in a hurry.


I live in PA where there are no skill or educational requirements to obtain a license. The fee is low ($20).


Quote:
The more I think about this, the better it sounds. In fact, I'll take the idea further, and throw this out there for consideration.

I propose a two-tiered license system, which I'll call Class A for the national license, and Class B for the state license.

My hypothetical law would make all current state-issued CHL's into Class B licenses by default, and prohibit the Feds from enacting any regulations affecting Class B licenses. No state would be required to honor a Class B license from another state, but all would be free to do so by choice. In effect, Class B would preserve the existing reciprocity system with no changes whatsoever.

Standards for the new Class A license would be agreed upon by a committee drawn from various different states.

The new federal Class A license would be honored in any and every state. No state would be required to issue it, but a citizen or lawful permanent resident of a non-issuing state would be permitted to obtain one elsewhere. I suggest making Class A licenses shall-issue, and adding a clause allowing a licensee to carry ONE unregistered handgun into a state that mandates handgun registration, provided that the gun is of a type that residents of the state can lawfully possess under normal circumstances. I also suggest making Class A licensees exempt from the out-of-state "Gotcha Clause" in the GFSZA, but perhaps this is REALLY wishful thinking.

I find this proposal to be a shockingly logical alternative to allowing the proverbial camel's nose in the tent for ALL CHL's.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14999 seconds with 7 queries