Constitutional CCW Reciprcity

[wayneinFL]

Things change every two years in the federal government. You never know who's in power. The last thing I want is a government to sets the standard so high that one could never pass it.

It depends on how it is written. If the administration, or someone appointed by the administration. If it's like in FL, training has to be by an NRA or law enforcement instructor in which the instructor watches a student safely discharge a firearm. A DD214 or a hunter safety card works. So our training requirement is not set by the government. There is more than one avenue.

It doesn't have to be like Utah where the government approves instructors and sets minimums for the curriculum.

[bikerbill]

State by state reciprocity isn't the answer ... as an example, my wife and I drove to Vegas for a vacation in October. Every state we passed through accepted my Texas CHL -- except for Nevada. Before we crossed the state line, I dutifully unloaded my PM9, padlocked it in its case and stashed it in the trunk. For a week, all I had for protection was a 3-inch folder, not ideal. I understand the issue of varying requirements for licensing among the states, but I would NOT be a fan of universal rules handed down from DC ... picturing a semester-long course and firing 500 rounds into a pie plate at 50 yards to pass the national test. We need a national law that allows carry in all states, but getting something like that passed, especially in the current atmosphere in Washington, seems like a pipe dream.

On the plus side, we saw some great shows and I gained 10 pounds via eating at every buffet in town.

[wayneinFL]

Maybe after we strike down may issue, we can get states to offer permits to out of state residents. That would be a step.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=427710

[noelf2]

State by state reciprocity isn't the answer ... as an example, my wife and I drove to Vegas for a vacation in October. Every state we passed through accepted my Texas CHL -- except for Nevada

Sounds to me like state to state reciprocity is doing pretty well for you. Is for me too ... as an example, 10 years ago while driving to Florida to visit my folks I had to unload my gun and pack it away when I got to South Carolina. I couldn't get it back out until i got to Florida. Now I can keep it on through South Carolina and Alabama, but have to pack it away in Georgia. Getting way closer to reciprocity in Georgia too from what I hear. Also, several years ago I had to put my gun away in Illinois when driving to see family in Missouri, and I had to leave it put away the whole time I was in Missouri too. Now, I still have to put it away in Illinois but can get it out again as soon as I get to Missouri. Illinois is making great progress too and I'll bet that in a year or two I'll be able to keep it out there too. Reciprocity is doing great IMHO.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by wayneinFL

Maybe after we strike down may issue, we can get states to offer permits to out of state residents. That would be a step.

I've noticed that not all states allow an out-of-state person to get a license in their state. I've also noticed a trend where some states will not recognize another state's license holder unless the person is a resident of that other state.

If you look at this map, you'll see (indicated by the dark blue) that there is a large area of the US where the states only issue CHLs to their own residents.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...city_maps.html

One of the problems is that states change who they recognize. These websites help a lot, but ultimately it is our own responsibility to check with each state that we might be passing through on a trip to see if our CHL is recognized by that state. Or you can just take your chances and hope that you won't be stopped for "revenue enhancement" while you are passing through a state.

As far as I know, every state recognizes the license plates and inspection stickers (or lack thereof) of every other state. As far as I'm concerned, CHLs should be the same way.

Now, I can remember back in the old days when states had agreements amongst themselves that allowed the revenue enhancement to be enforced. If you got stopped in a state that did not have an agreement with your state, the revenue enhancement officer would arrest you for a simple speeding ticket, have your car towed, and you would have to make bail to get out of jail. Of course, this lead to some people who were stopped just asking the officer if they could "just pay the fine now in cash". Whether that cash made it back to the general coffers, is another issue entirely. I've used that technique when driving in Mexico over the years. Yeah, it's bribery, but it's CHEAP bribery, so it's OK.

[wayneinFL]

revenue enhancement officer

Now, I still have to put it away in Illinois but can get it out again as soon as I get to Missouri. Illinois is making great progress too and I'll bet that in a year or two I'll be able to keep it out there too. Reciprocity is doing great IMHO.

FYI, there is no provision in IL for reciprocity. But you can pressure your state AG to lobby for one.

But if you live in HI, you can apply for a non resident permit.

Texas is in a similar situation to FL. We both have about 35 states, which is about all you can get. You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.

I understand for a lot of you, interstate carry is not an immediate issue. If you go on vacation a couple weeks out of the year, you choose where you travel, and if you do choose to go to a non carry state, you do without a couple of weeks. Not a big deal, I suppose.

[WilliamDahl]

Originally Posted by wayneinFL

Texas is in a similar situation to FL. We both have about 35 states, which is about all you can get. You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.

You have to wonder about about WHY some of the states do not recognize another state though. Nevada does not recognize the Texas or Florida CHLs, but they do recognize the Alaska CHL. They don't even recognize a Utah CHL and Utah is right next door.

[ThesNazud]

You loosen your restrictions, you lose states.

But by that logic shouldn't IL with our(as far as I can tell) most stringent requirements mean we'd have the most? Or did I misunderstand what you said/meant?

[ClydeFrog]

While I'm pro-gun & support the 2A, Id see a lot of legal issues with a federal law re; concealed carry.
This to me seems to complicate the states rights issues & give those powers over to the federal government.
If you qualify & get a state issued CCW would that then become the federal requirement to carry a concealed weapon?
As noted, some states or local jurisdictions are not as strict re: concealed carry standards. How would that be enforced or looked at in court?
If I have a use of force event & go on trial, would a "jury of my peers" be fair to me if my state's CCW regulations were not as rigid as the state or place I'm being adjudicated in?

Some are comparing it to LEOSA. The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. This isn't a bill, but a US law. Signed by President Bush & later modified by President Obama(to include military retirees who served in LE positions).
I'm not sure if it's a valid comparison for a # of reasons but I do say the LEOSA is worth it to those retired cops or federal agents who choose to use it.
I, for one, could live with the system that's in place now. Having the federal government get into the CCW business seems un-needed at this point.

Clyde

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

Some are comparing it to LEOSA. The Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. This isn't a bill, but a US law. Signed by President Bush & later modified by President Obama(to include military retirees who served in LE positions).

???

Are you not aware that laws become laws by being introduced as bills in the House or the Senate, where they are discussed and voted on? Only if a bill is passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed by the President does it become a law.

Bills are just pieces of paper. They have no force and effect. Not ever.

The LEOSA began as a bill -- House bill HR 218, IIRC. It became a law only after it was voted in, passed, and signed by the President. It is now a law -- not a bill.

[ClydeFrog]

That's what I stated in my TFL post.
It started as a bill, got passed then signed into law.

As noted, should this national CCW bill come up, I don't think it will pass.
I highly doubt POTUS Obama will sign it.
He supports LEOSA but not citizen concealed carry.

[62coltnavy]

Clyde, think of it this way. Your driver's license is valid in every other state, irrespective of your particular state's requirements for obtaining one, and irrespective of the minimum insurance requirements imposed as a condition of licensure. I don't recall hearing any "state's rights" complaints about required reciprocity. A car is just as deadly a weapon as a firearm; there is no reason that rules of reciprocity should be any different between them.

[Fishing_Cabin]

There is, and has been debate over states participating fully, or less than fully in the DLC (Driver License Compact), DLA (Driver License Agreement), and the NRVC (Non-Resident Violator Compact). If the states work together as to CCW, it will never be complete reciprocity in every respect, as drivers licenses are not either.

This is why some states may not report certain charges to your home state, but others do, or is why you must post bond for minor offenses. Yes, you can drive in other states, but the various agreements come in to play when there is an issue or conflict, and it would be reasonable to expect the same with any CCW agreements.

[jrwhitt]

And for the DL's its significant that there is ONLY the compact between the States and not a Law or Regulation that forces it.

[ClydeFrog]

I understand the point about DLs & vehicles but it's not quite the same.
The US auto industry pushed the "car culture" on society in the 1940s/1950s/1960s. They lobbied for federal highways, roads, bridges, etc.
They wanted to see as many people as possible in a vehicle spending $$$ on gas, tires, oil, parts, etc.
Transportation are a vital part of US commerce. Firearms & concealed firearms are not. The CCW issue is hotly debated & not everyone "needs" a gun the way they "need" a car.

Clyde

[wayneinFL]

Transportation are a vital part of US commerce. Firearms & concealed firearms are not. The CCW issue is hotly debated & not everyone "needs" a gun the way they "need" a car.

People don't need guns as often as they need cars, but when they need a gun, they REALLY need a gun. That's why it's considered a fundamental right and the Founding Father meant to enumerate it as a right in the Constitution.

Believe me, I didn't pay the extra $25 to check a carry-on sized bag with a pistol in it, (4 times in the last month) because it's fun to carry. There is a need behind it.

This is why some states may not report certain charges to your home state, but others do, or is why you must post bond for minor offenses. Yes, you can drive in other states, but the various agreements come in to play when there is an issue or conflict, and it would be reasonable to expect the same with any CCW agreements.

The problem is that CCW agreements aren't the same between all states, but that many states don't recognize the right at all.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

Transportation are a vital part of US commerce. Firearms & concealed firearms are not. The CCW issue is hotly debated & not everyone "needs" a gun the way they "need" a car.

On the other hand, there is no constitutional guarantee of a right to operate a vehicle, not even in your home state and certainly not in other states. That's why all states issue licenses to operate motor vehicles.

But there IS a constitutionally guaranteed right (supposedly) to keep and bear arms. When you have to request and pay for a license to exercise a right, it is no longer a right.

And THAT is the fundamental difference between drivers' licenses and sidearms.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree with the last post remarks but the problem comes up with standards & training requirements.
Would it be 0? Would every gun owner/license holder need a federal test? Who would administer the exam(s)? How long would "federal mandate or approved" licenses last? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years?
What if new elected officials wanted to "opt out" of the federal program?

As I said, a nationwide CCW seems nice but I don't see how it would be managed or enforced w/o errors or problems.
See the recent www.Healthcare.gov mess.

Clyde

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I agree with the last post remarks but the problem comes up with standards & training requirements.
Would it be 0? Would every gun owner/license holder need a federal test? Who would administer the exam(s)? How long would "federal mandate or approved" licenses last? 2 years? 4 years? 6 years?
What if new elected officials wanted to "opt out" of the federal program?

You are missing the point.

The bill being proposed does NOT in any way establish any federal license, federal program, federal exam, federal training requirements, or federal anything. ALL it does is require each state to recognize a carry license or permit issued by any other state.

[Spats McGee]

For the moment. I guess I just don't believe that any such bill would survive the enactment process without being amended to include federal standards. Even if it did, I don't think it would be long before the Schumers/Feinsteins/etc. started screaming for federal standards.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

...I just don't believe that any such bill would survive the enactment process without being amended to include federal standards. Even if it did, I don't think it would be long before the Schumers/Feinsteins/etc. started screaming for federal standards.

...or the restrictive states could sue, ultimately resulting in de facto federal standards being imposed by the courts.

This is why I've argued for a separate tier of federal licenses. This would give the restrictive states impetus to focus their energy on the federal standards rather than attacking carry in general.

However, the more I've thought about this issue, the more I've come to believe that we should just let sleeping dogs lie until the SCOTUS definitively rules on carry outside the home.

[Tom Servo]

Even if it did, I don't think it would be long before the Schumers/Feinsteins/etc. started screaming for federal standards.

That, or they'd decide that they do care about federalism and they'd declare it a violation of "states' rights." They tried that in a couple of briefs opposing us in the McDonald case.

[wayneinFL]

This is why I've argued for a separate tier of federal licenses. This would give the restrictive states impetus to focus their energy on the federal standards rather than attacking carry in general.

A few states already have a two-tiered system- an "enhanced" CCW license allows residents to carry in some of the prohibited places, or allows them more states. Idaho now has reciprocity with WA, for example.

Other states have constitutional carry, but still offer licenses for people who need to carry in other states.

I like the idea of a low cost/no cost option for people who don't need reciprocity, and a higher cost option for people who do. It's not as good as nationwide constitutional carry- it's a stopgap measure- but it'[s a better stopgap measure than what we have now.

[noelf2]

Would you be opposed to a two tier system for freedom of speech? Or religion? Or any other constitutional right? How about you can only call a politician a liar if you pay a bit more money? Or perhaps you have the right to remain silent, but not if questioned by police unless you can show them your "I paid for this" card? How about praying at home, but you have to pay a fee to pray in public? Not sure how you can "like the idea of a low cost/no cost option for people who don't need reciprocity". Who claims that anyone has to have a "need" for their rights? Constitutional rights are there because the need has already been recognized, for everyone!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by noelf2

Would you be opposed to a two tier system for freedom of speech? Or religion? Or any other constitutional right?

Thank you.

I agree. Although that brings us to the point of having to remember that, in the strictest terms, ANY license or permit to carry could be argued to be unconstitutional. Subject to the proviso that, as the state courts decided in Ohio, and many years previously in Utah (I think), if the state wants to ban or license concealed carry they may do so, BUT only if they freely allow unlicensed open carry. However, it could also go the other way. It's unlikely to happen, but a state theoretically could decide that unlicensed concealed carry is okay, but you need a license to carry openly. It could make for an interesting situation if some states ended up licensing concealed carry while others chose to license open carry -- think what a mess THAT would make for reciprocity.