NJ transport laws

[kbialick]

Hi everyone I’m looking to get my NH non resident cc permit so that I can carry while in PA since I frequently travel there. I’m curious about the legality of transporting my gun to and from pa while doing so. I know the nj laws for interstate travel with a handgun but those seem to be while driving through nj not as a nj resident transferring to and from. I always knew the law in nj that unless you were going to or from a range with the shortest route possible and no stops you couldn’t transport a handgun in your car. Anyone have any info on this

[44 AMP]

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Howard Johnson's last night. This is not legal advice, just my opinion, and worth what you paid for it. That being said...

If you are a resident of state A, then you fall under state A's rules, (all that apply) while you are inside state A's borders. When you cross the border into another state, you fall under that state's laws as a non-resident.

The Federal FOPA provides some legal protection if you are transiting (just passing through) but you are never "just passing through" your home state of residence.

If I understand correctly, you live in NJ, and are getting a NH non-resident permit, to use in PA (which I assume honors them). Tricksy.....

NJ allows carry to the range, and back (sort of), so I would suggest that you find a range in PA, one that gives receipts. You may operate in PA as PA allows under your NH permit, but once you cross back into NJ, (who does not honor your NH permit) if you aren't going to, or coming back from a range (or any of the few other allowed locations) then you ARE violating NJ law.

I suggest you retain a NJ lawyer, one qualified in NJ firearms law, and get instruction on what is, and isn't legal from them, paying what ever is required, and keeping multiple copies of those instructions, and having one set with you when you travel.

An officer who stops you might not be fully versed in the nuances of the law. You could be entirely in the right, and still be arrested. If a judge agrees you are in the right, charges will be dropped

You aren't in a good situation to do what you want to do, and I strongly suggest you get professional legal advice before you do anything that could seriously complicate your life.

Good Luck

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

If you are a resident of state A, then you fall under state A's rules, (all that apply) while you are inside state A's borders. When you cross the border into another state, you fall under that state's laws as a non-resident.

The Federal FOPA provides some legal protection if you are transiting (just passing through) but you are never "just passing through" your home state of residence.

The second paragraph quoted above seems to suggest that the FOPA does not apply for someone from New Jersey traveling to Pennsylvania, since they are adjacent and there is no "through" an intervening state involved. And there is a lengthy discourse on the web site of the Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association (PAFOA) that puts forth exactly that argument.

I don't agree, but I'm not a lawyer. (However, I don't think the guy who wrote the piece on the PAFOA forum site is a lawyer, either.) The reason why I disagree lies in the language of the FOPA:

18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
(Added Pub. L. 99–360, § 1(a), July 8, 1986, 100 Stat. 766.)

The express language of the law doesn't say anything about "through" a state or jurisdiction. It says a qualifying person may transport a firearm from any location where he is lawfully allowed to possess and carry it TO any location where he is lawfully allowed to possess and carry it. The issue is what the word "carry" means in the context of this law -- and the term isn't defined in the law itself.

If we take "carry" to mean having a carry permit, then basically nobody from New Jersey would be able to transport under the FOPA, even if they were driving from NJ to Arizona. Pretty much everything I have read suggests that, in the context of the FOPA, "possess" means own and keep in your house, and "carry" means transport in your automobile.

If we accept the second meaning (which I would not advise anyone to do without conducting your own research on the topic), then anyone in New Jersey who can lawfully own a gun and take it to a range in New Jersey should also be able to take that same gun to a range in Pennsylvania -- under the protection of the FOPA.

[kbialick]

That’s what makes it confusing since everything is about interstate travels. I will eventually speak to a lawyer about it and when I do post an update. My
Hope is also that having a non resident permit whether Utah Arizona or NH will allow me to carry in NJ if they actually pass the national concealed carry bull that just passed the House.... but then again it is NJ

[44 AMP]

I wouldn't get you hopes up.

Even with passage of National Reciprocity, and even if it worked the way we hope (and the odds are long against that...) it wouldn't help you much, if any.

You are a NJ resident, subject to NJ laws. Inside NJ your out of state non-resident carry permit is just a piece of paper, with no legal standing.

Again, this is a matter where qualified legal advice is needed, and in the exact situation you describe, may not be available, simply because it has never happened before, so there is no precedent on how a court might rule.

this is an interesting question though. I understand the argument, if national law becomes such that NJ must recognize out of state permits, but that presupposes that out of state permits are held by out of state residents.

It is entirely possible that even if NJ recognizes your out of state permit, the fact that you are a NJ resident may trump that. If you don't have the proper NJ RESIDENT permit, and you ARE a NJ resident, then carry in NJ under an out of state permit might not be legal for you, where if you were NOT an NJ resident it would be.

In other words, if you are a NJ resident and don't have (or can't get) the NJ required approval (permit) then it may not matter what paperwork from out of state you have.

Note that while we have voluntary national reciprocity with driver's licenses, if you become a resident of a state, you are required to obtain that state's drivers license. There is usually a time window (30/60 days, what ever..) to do this in, but once that window expires if you are caught driving on your out of state license, while in you new state of residence, you will be fined.

So, I find it entirely likely that as a NJ resident, not complying with NJ laws, and trying to carry in NJ, under the "loophole" of a non-resident permit from another state will land you in legal trouble, at the very least until established case law (court decisions) gives a guideline for dealing with such situations.

Feel free to be the test case, I wish you luck.

[Screwball]

The OP says he is not a NJ resident, so my guess was that he is a NY resident. So, going to post the associated NJ statutes. If someone asks about specifics in the future (considering I’m still in NJ, and a member here), will just post statute numbers to give them the material for reference.

2C:39-5 is the basis of NJ firearms transportation law. 2C:39-6 are exemptions to this, which pretty much tell you where you are allowed to transport firearms within NJ. If the OP would like to get a lawyer, all of 2C:39 is firearms statutes... for his reference to pass along to his attorney.

Merry Christmas to all members and staff at TFL.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Screwball

The OP says he is not a NJ resident,

Where did he say he is not a NJ resident?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It is entirely possible that even if NJ recognizes your out of state permit, the fact that you are a NJ resident may trump that. If you don't have the proper NJ RESIDENT permit, and you ARE a NJ resident, then carry in NJ under an out of state permit might not be legal for you, where if you were NOT an NJ resident it would be.

In other words, if you are a NJ resident and don't have (or can't get) the NJ required approval (permit) then it may not matter what paperwork from out of state you have.

We're getting off the original question but, since you brought this up, I will post the counter-argument. It's a red herring to compare to drivers licenses because, as you note, drivers license reciprocity is by interstate agreement, not by federal law. To address whether or not a NJ resident could carry under in NJ with a license from aniother state pursuant to national reciprocity, we should look at what the proposed law actually says.

Originally Posted by H.R. 38

§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

The first clause I highlighted expressly supersedes the laws of all the states -- expect as set forth specifically in the proposed law. So your concern that NJ law would trump national reciprocity has been addressed in the law.

The second passage I highlighted expressly says the person has to have a license or permit from "a" state (or be from a state that allows carry without a permit, but that doesn't apply in this discussion). It does not require that the license or permit be issued by his state of residence.

Subsection (b) then sets forth the only two exceptions for when the proposed national reciprocity would not supersede state law:

• permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
• prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

That's it. Beyond those two specific exceptions, the proposed national reciprocity trumps state laws because it says so right in the opening paragraph.

The concerns you raise have been addressed in the law. Does that mean that some police officers in NJ or other anti-gun states wouldn't try an arrest anyway, to test the limits of the new (if passed)? No ... in fact, they probably would. But such efforts to undermine the law could become very costly for the officers' jurisdictions, and I think they would end quickly. Why? Again, from the text of H.R. 38:

Originally Posted by H.R. 38

(c) (1) A person who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in accordance with subsections (a) and (b) may not be arrested or otherwise detained for violation of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof related to the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe that the person is doing so in a manner not provided for by this section. Presentation of facially valid documents as specified in subsection (a) is prima facie evidence that the individual has a license or permit as required by this section.

(2) When a person asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the prosecution shall bear the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the conduct of the person did not satisfy the conditions set forth in subsections (a) and (b).

(3) When a person successfully asserts this section as a defense in a criminal proceeding, the court shall award the prevailing defendant a reasonable attorney’s fee.

(d) (1) A person who is deprived of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by this section, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or any political subdivision thereof, may bring an action in any appropriate court against any other person, including a State or political subdivision thereof, who causes the person to be subject to the deprivation, for damages or other appropriate relief.

(2) The court shall award a plaintiff prevailing in an action brought under paragraph (1) damages and such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.

To be honest, I wonder how many people who are against this proposed law have actually taken the time to read it and understand what it says.

[Screwball]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Where did he say he is not a NJ resident?

When I misread his third sentence...

[44 AMP]

I think I understand the proposed law, but I am still confused, and wondering about how it would actually work out if it becomes law.

or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides,

this section in particular, makes me wonder how, or if it would modify the previous section

and who is carrying 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

My question is, first off, if you are a resident of state A, that requires a state A issued permit, then without one you are not entitled to carry a concealed firearm. Is this not correct??

The issue I'm trying to figure out is the legality of using an out of state permit, for carry by a state resident WHO DOES NOT HAVE a state of residence permit.

It appears that the proposed law, if passed would create this unintended consequence, whereby, the federal law requiring state to recognize out of state permits trumps the state law requiring RESIDENTS to have state issued permits.

IF SO, then why would any resident of NY, NJ, MA, and other places with similar laws bother with the hassle, delays and expense of obtaining their home state's permit at all??

IF it is legal for them to carry using a non-resident out of state license, doesn't that render the state required license rather moot?

OR, could NJ, for instance, make a law saying that they would only recognize an out of state permit for a NJ resident IF that resident also possess a valid NJ permit??

Right now, as I see it, (and assuming the Fed law passes) could not one be both legal to carry (under an out of state permit) and still be breaking the home state law by not having a resident permit, at the same time???

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

this section in particular, makes me wonder how, or if it would modify the previous section

My question is, first off, if you are a resident of state A, that requires a state A issued permit, then without one you are not entitled to carry a concealed firearm. Is this not correct??

I think, based on the exact language of the proposed law, that you are incorrect. The proposed law does not say that if you live in a state that requires a license/permit to carry you must have a license or permit from your state of residence to carry in other states. It says that anyone who has a license or permit issued by "a" (meaning "any" state is entitled to carry in all states. The second part of the qualifying provision (which is the first part you quoted above) is intended to address states that have "constitutional" carry--and thus don't require any license or permit. Under this part, if you live in a state that allows you to carry without any license or permit, then for the purposes of national reciprocity all you need in other states is your driver's license showing that you are a resident of your home state.

The issue I'm trying to figure out is the legality of using an out of state permit, for carry by a state resident WHO DOES NOT HAVE a state of residence permit.

That's covered by the part that says

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying 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 or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

Again, it doesn't say the license or permit must be issued by your state of residence. it says "a" state.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

It appears that the proposed law, if passed would create this unintended consequence, whereby, the federal law requiring state to recognize out of state permits trumps the state law requiring RESIDENTS to have state issued permits.

Are you sure this is an unintended consequence? I think it's intended -- it's a way of forcing recalcitrant states to honor the letter and the intent of the Second Amendment. Isn't that what we've been asking for for decades?

[Don P]

Even with passage of National Reciprocity, and even if it worked the way we hope (and the odds are long against that...) it wouldn't help you much, if any

Amen to that, and hopefully the odds will greatly increase against it passing

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don P

Amen to that, and hopefully the odds will greatly increase against it passing

Why? I've responded to 44 AMP's concerns. If you decline to explain your position, it's impossible to discuss it. Is that your intention?

[44 AMP]

Thank you Aguila, for your detailed responses. I think I understand your points, and the language of the proposed law you have quoted.

However, I am not (quite) seeing the answer to the question that is bugging me, so let me phrase it a different way. (and I'm going to use the OP's situation-in general)

You live in NJ.
You do NOT have an NJ permit.
You DO have a NH (non-resident) permit.

Currently, your NH permit allows you to carry in states that recognize it (such as PA) It does not allow you to carry in states that do not recognize it (such as NJ, your home state).

If the current bill for National Reciprocity passes, then NJ will have to recognize the NH permit, for non-NJ residents, to allow them to carry in NJ, under the out of state permit. Right? This is the intent of the bill, to allow non-residents of a state to legally carry in a different state, if they have a permit from their home state.

SO, how does this affect carry in your home state, if you do not have your home state's required permit??? Does/would having a permit from a different state override your home state's laws about carry by a resident, inside his state of residence's borders???

I didn't bring up drivers licenses as a direct comparison, only as a general comparison, showing how, residents are required to (after a grace period) obtain resident licenses. To show how the state can honor your out of state license (for a time) as they do out of state residents, but require residents to obtain the proper license for the state they are actually living in.

What I am wondering comes down to this, if you live in a state that requires a state issued license for state residents to carry, in their state of residence, would the Fed law requiring a state to recognize other states licenses, cancel out the state's requirement for their states permit to allow carry in their state, by a resident of their state, IF that resident has a license from another state, but does not have one from their state of residence??

I am only looking for opinions here, as I do recognize that there can be no established fact on the matter until it becomes law, and then gets challenged, and a court rules on the matter. (possibly several courts, up to the SCOTUS)

Another, somewhat similar situation would be NYC. NYC does not recognize permits issued by NY State, only those issued by NYC. My NY State permit specifically said "not valid in New York City" on it!

Would National Reciprocity change that? Or, would NYC vs NYS be considered an "in state" matter, where the Fed law would have no bearing??

Could the proposed Fed law create a situation where NYC would have to recognize the permits of out of state visitors, (to comply with Fed law) but still deny carry to residents of New York state, who have a NYState permit, but don't have a NYC permit?

I realize it is a can of worms. What I'm wondering about is, if the proposed law becomes law, who "owns" you, at home?

Currently its clear, your home state does. You live there, and fall under their rules, inside their state borders.

The OP has posited an interesting situation. He lives in NJ, and is under NJ law while in NJ. When he leaves NJ, he's under other states laws, and can use his non-resident permit in other states that allow it. But when he's in his home state, he has to follow his home state's laws.

SO, if NJ becomes forced to recognize all non-NJ permits, does this create a "catch-22" situation for NJ residents who have out of state permits and don't have the NJ permit??

Which law would cover the NJ RESIDENT, inside NJ??? My reasoning says resident needs state of residence permit to be legal. BUT, here we have someone saying "hey, I have an out of state permit, that Fed law says you have to recognize!" (with the implication being they can thumb their nose at their home state's permit requirement for residents, because they have an out of state permit that their home state "must" recognize)

The language of the proposed law does not seem to specifically cover this.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

However, I am not (quite) seeing the answer to the question that is bugging me, so let me phrase it a different way. (and I'm going to use the OP's situation-in general)

You live in NJ.
You do NOT have an NJ permit.
You DO have a NH (non-resident) permit.

Currently, your NH permit allows you to carry in states that recognize it (such as PA) It does not allow you to carry in states that do not recognize it (such as NJ, your home state).

If the current bill for National Reciprocity passes, then NJ will have to recognize the NH permit, for non-NJ residents, to allow them to carry in NJ, under the out of state permit. Right? This is the intent of the bill, to allow non-residents of a state to legally carry in a different state, if they have a permit from their home state.

SO, how does this affect carry in your home state, if you do not have your home state's required permit??? Does/would having a permit from a different state override your home state's laws about carry by a resident, inside his state of residence's borders???

I can see that's the part that you're stuck on. I believe the explicit language of the proposed law takes care of that, but we should probably get Frank and Spats to weigh in.

Your example:

You live in NJ.
You do NOT have an NJ permit.
You DO have a NH (non-resident) permit.

Currently, your NH permit allows you to carry in states that recognize it (such as PA) It does not allow you to carry in states that do not recognize it (such as NJ, your home state).

Agreed.

If the current bill for National Reciprocity passes, then NJ will have to recognize the NH permit, for non-NJ residents, to allow them to carry in NJ, under the out of state permit. Right? This is the intent of the bill, to allow non-residents of a state to legally carry in a different state, if they have a permit from their home state.

SO, how does this affect carry in your home state, if you do not have your home state's required permit??? Does/would having a permit from a different state override your home state's laws about carry by a resident, inside his state of residence's borders???

As I read the law, yes, it does override your home state's law. Remember, the proposed law opens up with the same language that was used in the LEOSA: "Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, ..."

Boom! New Jersey is out of business. As I pointed out above, the requirement in the proposed law is that (except for people who live in constitutional carry states) the required, qualifying identification is a photo ID and a license or permit from "a" state. Not from "the person's state of residence," but from "a" state. And it doesn't say a resident license or permit from "a" state ... it says a license or permit from "a" state. New Hampshire is a state. They issue to non-residents.

I think that's a wrap.

You are the one interpreting the language to mean "This is the intent of the bill, to allow non-residents of a state to legally carry in a different state, if they have a permit from their home state." But nowhere in the language does it limit the application to people who hold a license or permit from their home state, and nowhere does it state that this is the intent of the law. You're reading that into it. It says what it says -- if you have a license or permit from "a" state, all other states have to honor it.

You wrote:

This is the intent of the bill, to allow non-residents of a state to legally carry in a different state, if they have a permit from their home state.

Where did you find "from their home state" in the language of the proposed law? It doesn't say that. It says a license or permit from "a" state.

[FITASC]

Boom! New Jersey is out of business.

While I have been reading and following this thread, I really do not believe that. NJ already ignores things like FOPA (as do many other jurisdictions) Besides lawsuits and stringent restrictions, IMO, states like NJ will just simply strengthen their restrictions where one can carry making whatever is past as law moot.

I do not trust the Fed gov't in any manner with this type of legislation as their past history on any number of issues has shown how things can change with merely time, let alone a change of political beliefs in charge.

No matter this current scenario, the law basically states that any out of state person will need to follow the local law - like one needs to do with a DL - and if they simply ban carry in public, and all commercial locations, it won't matter where your permit comes from. And I do not want the Fed to then have the ability to change the requirements where I live (FL) or any of the other "free states" ( I HATE that term, but it seems to convey the message on this issue)

[LeverGunFan]

I'd guess that NJ and similar states wouldn't give up without a fight - I imagine that they would oppose any interpretation of the law that allows NJ residents to carry in NJ with an out of state permit.

Just a thought, if national reciprocity passes, would states continue to issue permits to out of state residents? What if - in the above example - NH elects to eliminate the issuance of permits to out of state residents?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by FITASC

No matter this current scenario, the law basically states that any out of state person will need to follow the local law - like one needs to do with a DL

Actually, it says exactly the contrary:

Originally Posted by H.R. 38

Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, ...

There are only two exceptions "in this section" to the law overriding state laws. Those are:

Originally Posted by H.R. 38

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

That's all, Folks. A state can't, for example, try to get around this law (if it passes) by prohibiting carry in shopping malls, movie theaters, churches, or any other general class of building or location unless it's a "State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

Furthermore, the proposed law is structured such that carrying in other than your home state under the protection of the proposed law would mean that the gun-free school zone act would not apply. Visitors would not be able to carry ON school property, but you wouldn't have to worry about trying to thread a path through a large city that avoids passing through any of the 1000-foot radius school zones that currently create a legal minefield for people carrying under reciprocity agreements or recognition.

[44 AMP]

ok, first, to be clear "notwithstanding" means "in spite of" or "no matter what the state law already says" is this correct??

And my "intent" of the law is the stated reason for the law, in pronouncements about it, and argument over it, which is to allow out of state people with a permit from somewhere, to carry in every state.

I did not mean to imply that language is actually IN the proposed law. It appears it isn't, and the language of the law allows for something much more than what is in the sound bytes.

I do agree with your reading of the bill, that as written it would overrule state carry laws. ALL of them, apparently..., except for still allowing private citizens the ability to decide to allow, or not, carry on their private property. (and the State on actual state propery...)

I think, at this point, I'll hold further speculation until we see what actually does pass and become law.

Thanks for the discussion!

[Don P]

Why? I've responded to 44 AMP's concerns. If you decline to explain your position, it's impossible to discuss it. Is that your intention?

Not at all. My question is what will this bill do for me in the following states?
NY and NYC, Maryland, DC, Massachusetts, NJ, California, with regards to their restrictive gun laws. As it stands now living in FL the state of Florida has reciprocity agreements with 36 states. Just my view point that many folks pushing for this legislation are from states that CCW is extremely hard to obtain or dam near impossible to obtain thinking this is going to be the fix all for their home state issues. Nothing good has come out of government with regards to firearms and the second amendment. Just look at what Feinstein is proposing again for legislation. Just my opinion again lets keep the nationwide carry out of Congresses hands for it would be a huge Pando'rs box

[FITASC]

+1 Don P

[Don P]

+1 Don P

Thank you. There are 4 retired LEO's that I shoot competition with and not one of them would consider traveling in the north east carrying concealed even with the federal law behind them. The letter abbreviation escapes me at this early hour for retired LEO

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don P

My question is what will this bill do for me in the following states?
NY and NYC, Maryland, DC, Massachusetts, NJ, California, with regards to their restrictive gun laws. As it stands now living in FL the state of Florida has reciprocity agreements with 36 states. Just my view point that many folks pushing for this legislation are from states that CCW is extremely hard to obtain or dam near impossible to obtain thinking this is going to be the fix all for their home state issues.

The short answer is that it would allow you to carry legally in all the states you listed. The proposed law supersedes the restrictive state laws.

I don't think home state issues is why most people are behind this at all. I have a permit from my home state, and I also have permits from five other states. I have no issues whatsoever carrying in my home state. But ... in order to visit friends and relatives who live in the Northeast and New England, I have to travel through states such as New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts. Technically, I'm legal if I "transport" in strict accordance with the FOPA (actually, even stricter, because the FOPA says the firearm "or" the ammunition must be in a locked case, but when that got to the NJ State Police web site "or" had become "and," so I need two, separate locked cases in New Jersey), but I can't carry when traversing those states. And it's well known that police in New York (especially NYC, and the most direct route into New England in I-95 across the George Washington Bridge and through NYC) pay no attention to the FOPA. Personally, I'd like to see real national reciprocity so I can drive from my house to my sister's house and not have to spend a significant portion of the trip disarmed.

The proposed law would do the same thing for you as it would for me in the states you named -- it would allow us to carry, legally, in those states as long as we either have a carry permit from any state, or if we come from a constitutional carry state. Moreover, under current reciprocity or recognition agreements, the gun-free school zone act is a trap. Current federal law says that one cannot carry in a school zone (which is defined as a radius extending 1000 feet around any school property) unless one has a license or permit issued by the state in which the school is located. Which means that in the 35 states other than Florida that recognize your Florida permit, you're breaking the law any time you drive through one of these school zones. If you actually travel out of state, do you check out where ALL schools (and other facilities that fall within the classification of "school," such as child day care centers) are located, and plan your movements and activities so you avoid all those [often overlapping] zones?

You mentioned California. Here's a map of the gun-free school zones for San Francisco:


Look closely. You can't drive through San Francisco on I-280 or state highway 101 without crossing numerous school zones. But, of course, California doesn't recognize Florida permits, so that's perhaps not the best example. But Arizona is now a "constitutional carry" state, so you can carry in AZ either with your Florida permit, or without it. But ... don't drive through Phoenix with a loaded gun on your hip.



Phoenix is laid out pretty much on a grid, and the major routes through the city run mostly straight north-south or east-west. But you can't just drive through Phoenix in a straight line in any direction without passing through numerous school zones. Even AZ residents aren't protected if they're following constitutional carry; the federal law only exempts people who have a license or permit issued by the state in which the school is located. A tourist, even with a Florida permit, is toast.

The proposed national reciprocity law addresses this. That's as good a reason as any to pass it, even though it also conveys other benefits and advantages beyond fixing the GFSZ problem.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by kbialick

That’s what makes it confusing since everything is about interstate travels.

Traveling from New Jersey to Pennsylvania is, by definition, interstate travel. The FOPA is federal law. The feds don't have jurisdiction over travel within New Jersey, they assert jurisdiction under the interstate commerce clause. So, once more than one state is involved, the feds can claim jurisdiction. It isn't necessary to have three states in order to have interstate travel. All you have to do is cross one state border.

[Al Norris]

Fixing the "Gun Free School Zone" (GFSZ), I hardly think so.

Whether or not this law, if enacted, voids a state restriction (presumably modeled on the federal law - 922(q)), it does nothing to void the actual federal restriction. It is plain that one must have a license/permit issued by the state in which the school is located:

§922(q)(2)(B)(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

The proposed national reciprocity law does not explicitly nor even implicitly address the above. You will still need a state permit in order to not fall afoul of federal law.