Free CCW?

[Webleymkv]

Indiana is considering a similar idea though, to my understanding, we wouldn't be completely doing away with the LTCH (we call it a license to carry a handgun, in IN there is no legal distinction between open and concealed carry) but rather making it non-mandatory. This would be my preferred scenario because while I don't believe an adult who can legally own a gun should need a license or permit to carry it, Indiana's LTCH does have reciprocity in some other states and I'd prefer not to lose that if I can avoid it (I also already paid to get a Lifetime LTCH )

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

It's not akin at all. There are no federal laws making it illegal to carry a gun without a permit. There are federal laws making it illegal to possess/use marijuana.

Originally Posted by Moomooboo

As far as im aware there are no federal laws mandating people have to have permits for cc.

The Gun Free School Zone Act makes it a felony to carry a firearm withing 1000 feet of a school zone.

An exception to this would be a valid Permit to carry issued by the State that the school zone is in.

So, the way I read the GFSZ Act, even if the State allows carry without a Permit within 1000 feet of a school zone, the Feds do not. It is against Federal Law to possess a firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone without a permit.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

In what respects?

The biggy is No Open Carry of a Handgun, another would be No Bar Carry, in fact Texas considers Bar Carry a Felony. I'm not sure if any other States do that.

[JohnKSa]

The Gun Free School Zone Act makes it a felony to carry a firearm withing 1000 feet of a school zone.

An exception to this would be a valid Permit to carry issued by the State that the school zone is in.

Ok, I suppose that's a fair parallel.

The biggy is No Open Carry of a Handgun, another would be No Bar Carry, in fact Texas considers Bar Carry a Felony. I'm not sure if any other States do that.

The TX open carry ban is fairly unusual, I'll give you that. No carry in a bar is a fairly common prohibition and to the extent that TX does stand out in that respect these days, it's the largely the product of a loosening of bar carry laws in other states, not because bar carry has been commonly legal in other states.

Even if we accept those two examples for the sake of argument, two respects is not many respects.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

These States are passing legislation that puts those that choose to Legally carry (without a permit) at risk of becoming an instant felon and they don't even know it. If I had to guess, I would say that the Legislators that are promoting this type of Legislation are not even aware of the risks involved with Federal law.

Your point about the GFSZ Act is valid. Beyond that, I just don't see how eliminating the requirement for a permit in any way puts people at [more] risk of unintentionally committing a felony.

Bar carry is not regulated by federal law. Open carry vs. concealed carry is not regulated by federal law. Even if we drill down to state laws, the only change is that no permit will be required. If a state prohibits carry in bars, that wouldn't change so what's the increased risk? If a state has a law prohibiting the carry of firearms in Dairy Queens, that law wouldn't change, so what's the increased risk?

Post Office? Already prohibited under federal law, irrespective of whether or not you have a permit. No change there, so no increased risk.

Basically, the only downside I can see to permitless carry is the GFSZ Act.

[rickyrick]

I like the fact that in Texas there's specific signage that must be posted in places that conceal carry is prohibited... Takes SOME of the guesswork out of it... I've traveled around the country and tried to follow rules, but it's exhausting trying to figure out the laws... I like that no permit is required to have a weapon in your car in Texas.... Texas has a decent castle doctrine now and I think the use of deadly force statutes are reasonable...

Many states have older laws that were meant to be taken off the books that are still there and can lead to problems.

[steve4102]

That's all I got, the GFSZ Act.

It is the law and it can be enforced. The issue is, how many State Legislators and how many average citizens are even aware of it.

I just don't see how eliminating the requirement for a permit in any way puts people at [more] risk of unintentionally committing a felony.

How about this.

You are legally carrying without a permit and you are well within 1000 feet of a school zone. You are attacked by a couple armed Bad-Guys. You use your legally carried firearm to protect yourself. The Local DA says, Self Defense and you are not charged in the shooting. Except the Feds come in and charge you with violating the GFSZ Act. You are convicted and are now a Felon who has lost his Second Amendment Rights forever.

Think it can't happen.

It did to this guy, although this was related to "legal" marijuana and a Self Defense shooting.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...in-4965683.php

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by steve4102

How about this.

You are legally carrying without a permit and you are well within 1000 feet of a school zone. You are attacked by a couple armed Bad-Guys. You use your legally carried firearm to protect yourself. The Local DA says, Self Defense and you are not charged in the shooting. Except the Feds come in and charge you with violating the GFSZ Act. You are convicted and are now a Felon who has lost his Second Amendment Rights forever.

We have already agreed that this is an issue. That's the ONLY potential issue I can see about any state dropping the requirement for permits to carry.

That's resolved by making permits available as an option, for those who know they may need one. However, if the permit is just a piece of paper that's essentially redundant and superfluous under state law, there shouldn't be a usurious fee for it and there shouldn't be an onerous training and/or qualification requirement for the permit (Hello, Texas).

[rickyrick]

Yes a Texas CHL is quite expensive. You must attend a class, given by a person that has been qualified to give that class by the state.... Takes two days off from work for most people (hidden cost) and it seems that they can charge upwards of 300$+ (expensive for average joe)(box of ammo)(rent a gun possibly) gotta get your fingerprints done by a contractor... =time off of work (hidden cost) pay a nominal fee for the prints.... Get passport photos, for some (they used my DL photo last time)
Fill out vague but somewhat simple packet, including work history and residences for ten years... Pay exhorbitant state fee (on top of other expenses already shelled out)
Then you wait months to get it.... Could cost a guy $600 or more easily

Washington State fill out paper at sheriffs office, get printed, pay resonable fee (all at one place, at the same time)... Few days later, permit is in the mailbox...

One experience is way better than the other I'll tell you

[CowTowner]

Yes a Texas CHL is quite expensive.

I don't think it's as expensive any longer. The law was changed during the last legislative session. Class time was shortened. The average I see for the class from an instructor is $75. The range I work at, provides 9mm Glocks for student use. You buy/provide the 50 rounds of ammo. Pictures are also done on site and included with the course cost. Finger prints do require an extra fee. Yes, the state gets it's money too. Is it perfect or easy? Nope. But I think we're in better shape license wise than some other states. And our new Governor thinks there will be open carry in Texas this session. Who's to say? Maybe it will happen.

[rickyrick]

That's a good change, now if they could fix reciprocity agreements with a couple of states I frequent.

But, you can't beat 50$, one form and done yet lol

[steve4102]

That's resolved by making permits available as an option, for those who know they may need one. However, if the permit is just a piece of paper that's essentially redundant and superfluous under state law, there shouldn't be a usurious fee for it and there shouldn't be an onerous training and/or qualification requirement for the permit (Hello, Texas).

To qualify as a "permit" under the GFSZ Act it needs to be more than a "Piece of Paper".

People who have a carry permit physically issued by the State in which the school is located are exempted by the federal law, but only in the State that physically issued the permit, and only if their State performed the "proper" background check.

http://www.ok2a.org/fedgfsza

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

But, you can't beat 50$, one form and done yet lol

How about Pennsylvania? Open carry without permit allowed everywhere except within Philadelphia city limits. License required for concealed carry. No class required. Walk into county sheriff's office. Fill out form. Have photo taken. Hand the pretty girl behind the counter $20. Walk out with license.

My last renewal I was in and out within 20 minutes. That includes waiting time for the couple who arrived ahead of me, and a bout five to seven minutes for a chat in the hallway with the sheriff himself.

Steve, the background check is a routine inquiry. The only reason the sheriffs in PA are allowed to collect $20 is to pay for the time they expend making the phone call for a first issuance. Some PA counties make you wait a week or two while they process the background check, others run it on the spot and even first-time applicants walk out with their license.

It does not have to be the big deal that some states try to make it.

This conversation brings to mind the frog in the pot metaphor. Too many people in too many states have gradually become so accustomed to real, honest-to-deity infringements on their RKBA that they no longer even recognize what an infringement is. They simple accept the status quo, and often even defend it.

The water just feels nicely warm ...

[TimSr]

I've always felt that getting a state permit to exercise a Constitutional right was wrong, but I also realize that we lost our rights incrementally over many, many years, and incrementally is the way we will be getting them back. The number of states issuing permits now is amazing to me, and that each of these states relaxes those requirements more and more as time goes on gives me hope that "Constitutional Carry" will one day be the law of the land except for a few pockets of bankrupt states that nobody lives in any more.

I think its almost time to push lawmakers into repealing the school zone nonsense. I can't figure out on what basis they ever had the authority to impose these laws on states to begin with to bring federal statutes into local schools.

[deblaw223]

The school zone rule poses big logistical problems for those who want to abide by the law. Nevada has a proposed bill that would make it legal to have the gun in the car, etc. as a new exception

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by deblaw223

The school zone rule poses big logistical problems for those who want to abide by the law. Nevada has a proposed bill that would make it legal to have the gun in the car, etc. as a new exception

A new exception to what? The GFSZ Act is federal law -- the state can't enact an exception to a federal law. The exception to the GFSZA is to have a license/permit issued by the state in which the school is located.

[deblaw223]

Tell the Nevada legislature that. I don't draft the bills--I just posted about the proposal