National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Drawn Up for Next Congress

[Bfatz]

Republican lawmakers introduce bill to allow guns in airports following Ft. Lauderdale shooting

https://t.co/1brNKaxk4b

 

[firestorm]

This article sums up well how I feel about it. http://www.ammoland.com/2016/12/stop...#axzz4UESc7tHE The federal govt. has shown time and time again that it can't be trusted. Unfortunately some states have done the same but if federal it affects everyone.

That article is focused on the idea that people are looking for a national license or permit, thats not the case at all. Forced reciprocity of existing licenses is all positive, and leaves anti states in a bind on ways they can screw with it if they keep the language they currently have. the only issue is if the liberals take over the government completely at some point they could repeal it, or put another law in weakening or removing this one.

What people aren't seeing is they could do that anyway, nothing stops a dem controlled govt from trying to screw us from the federal level on any number of things. Yet they haven't been getting far with that stuff lately because democrats down south would lose seats over it. We are never totally safe, but the federal government is a safer bet than trying to deal with anti states on these issues (Look at the crap CA is dealing with right now, and they will probably get worse soon).

Also, with good judicial appointments (Not just SCOTUS but a lot of federal courts have openings) this stuff might start rolling back the other way. Its slow, but if we push we could start getting our rights back.

 

[spt_1955]

Correct re: NH non-res, but this is a pretty recent change:

Glad you clarified that because my NH non resident is only 18 months old and I had to supply my MA LTC.

 

[strangenh]

Republican lawmakers introduce bill to allow guns in airports following Ft. Lauderdale shooting

https://t.co/1brNKaxk4b

Hmm. That shooting took place outside the security area anyway.

 

[drgrant]

This seems to be the recent trend on reciprocity lately...only accepting resident permits.

It's not "recent" at all, the states that have had that stipulation (like NH) have had it for a long time.

-Mike

 

[NFD9]

It's not "recent" at all, the states that have had that stipulation (like NH) have had it for a long time.

-Mike

I was thinking more on the lines of FL, PA...and the recent VI AG's decision to end reciprocity (but later changed) with NC and other states.

 

[drgrant]

I was thinking more on the lines of FL, PA...and the recent VI AG's decision to end reciprocity (but later changed) with NC and other states.

PA has been wonky about that residency/reciprocity issue for at least a decade now, depending on who the sitting AG is.

-Mike

 

[Sparky123]

Republican lawmakers introduce bill to allow guns in airports following Ft. Lauderdale shooting

https://t.co/1brNKaxk4b

Why does the average citizen need to carry a gun at the airport when we have the police to protect us ?

 

[NFD9]

PA has been wonky about that residency/reciprocity issue for at least a decade now, depending on who the sitting AG is.

-Mike

Not quite that long...

• February 4, 2013: Effective this date, Pennsylvania will not honor a Florida concealed weapon license if the license holder is not a resident of the state of Florida.

http://www.freshfromflorida.com/content/download/7444/118465/ReciprocityList.pdf

And I know the VI debacle was much more recent...but I do see where your coming from.

 

[wahsben]

Anything that gives the federal govt. more power over our rights is not positive. That article states what would work best even though not perfect. The govt. has shown time and time again that it can't be trusted to protect our rights yet there are many people that want to give it more power. Not a good thing.

That article is focused on the idea that people are looking for a national license or permit, thats not the case at all. Forced reciprocity of existing licenses is all positive, and leaves anti states in a bind on ways they can screw with it if they keep the language they currently have. the only issue is if the liberals take over the government completely at some point they could repeal it, or put another law in weakening or removing this one.

What people aren't seeing is they could do that anyway, nothing stops a dem controlled govt from trying to screw us from the federal level on any number of things. Yet they haven't been getting far with that stuff lately because democrats down south would lose seats over it. We are never totally safe, but the federal government is a safer bet than trying to deal with anti states on these issues (Look at the crap CA is dealing with right now, and they will probably get worse soon).

Also, with good judicial appointments (Not just SCOTUS but a lot of federal courts have openings) this stuff might start rolling back the other way. Its slow, but if we push we could start getting our rights back.

 

[NFD9]

Anything that gives the federal govt. more power over our rights is not positive. That article states what would work best even though not perfect. The govt. has shown time and time again that it can't be trusted to protect our rights yet there are many people that want to give it more power. Not a good thing.

By that standard, the Feds should have never intervened in slavery or women/human rights...I'm just not getting this argument.
And yes, I get the National constitutional carry is the only way to go... Bla, Bla, Bla point...it's never going to happen, in our life time, IMHO!
BTW... wouldn't National CC be Fed intervention also?
I'll bet you'd be ok with Fed intervention then...right?

 

[mikem317]

While I agree with your sentiment, I have deep concerns.

If it passes, I don't see much changing in places like NY. They will do like they do with FOPA. Arrest, detain and lock someone up until they can verify everything.

As for the negative effects, this would create precedence of Federal control with respect to CCW. Get a Dem POTUS and Congress and Federal restrictions on who, what, where and when CCW is "allowed"[sic] are sure to follow.

For the short term. Long term? I see a tremendous change. Can you imagine the outcry if people from MA, NH, VT and ME are in NYC with concealed pistols? NY residents would demand that their resident laws change. Or they would just acquire non-resident licenses from other states so they could lawfully carry in their own state. Odd as that may sound.

My biggest concern about nationwide reciprocity is that it will be a cluster **** by the time the politicians get done with it. We would have states like NY, MA and CA all insisting that the issues of permits meet "reasonable criteria" that they decide on, such as requiring a 40 hour per year training period that covers alternatives to lethal force, the psychology of disadvantaged youth and peace and love. They would probably set up training schools for this, opening one or two per state and charging $10,000 tuition for that week. The schools would be booked out for four years. The permits would cost $500 and have to be renewed every single year at the same time that you are taking the class that you can't get into because the school is booked for four years.

Then again, maybe they would just make it a national permit that costs $50 and is shall issue. That would be nice.

I don't see that happening with the onerous restrictions. States that tried would be sued. Or the Fed.gov would dole out pee-pee slaps. I DO have a problem with national licenses. No need for it. The states already perform this function.

It needs to be a state that issues non-residence licenses without requiring you possess a resident license from your home state. While NH is cheap, they require you have your resident license unless one is not required (Vt, Az, etc).

So a NYC resident could not get a NH non-resident but they could get a FL non-resident.

NH will issue a non-resident a license without the applicant having a license from their own state now.

 

[mikem317]

Anything that gives the federal govt. more power over our rights is not positive. That article states what would work best even though not perfect. The govt. has shown time and time again that it can't be trusted to protect our rights yet there are many people that want to give it more power. Not a good thing.

The bill, as written, doesn't give the fed.gov more power over our rights. The whole purpose of the fed.gov is to protect our rights. And national reciprocity is the fed.gov fulfilling that duty.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

No permission slip needed by any state would be nice.

 

[drgrant]

No permission slip needed by any state would be nice.

That'll happen right after that little girl who lives in the apartment gets that pony she wants for her birthday.

-Mike

 

[mikem317]

No permission slip needed by any state would be nice.

That's the next step. But they'll be hold-outs. And you know what states those would be. In 10 years, they'll be 10 to 12 more Constitutional Carry states. But that's still half. The other half will be forced to accept the fact that people have rights protected by the Constitution.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

That'll happen right after that little girl who lives in the apartment gets that pony she wants for her birthday.

-Mike

She did !Yesterday

 

[CrackPot]

I remember this requirement from when I applied in NH. I then grabbed the form off the NH site at https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp260.pdf The directions for this form still has the following directions of "A non-resident pistal license will not be issued unless you supply a copy of your valid concealed carry license"

The fact that this is no longer required is good news, but is NOT reflected on the NH official state website and form

Correct re: NH non-res, but this is a pretty recent change:

 

[42!]

I remember this requirement from when I applied in NH. I then grabbed the form off the NH site at https://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/ssb/permitslicensing/documents/dssp260.pdf The directions for this form still has the following directions of "A non-resident pistal license will not be issued unless you supply a copy of your valid concealed carry license"

The fact that this is no longer required is good news, but is NOT reflected on the NH official state website and form

My NH application went out without a MA LTC withing a couple days of the ruling. I just wrote in to see the attached ruling and included a copy of the full ruling. I figured there was no way they'd have the process updated and at least this way they might check before just sending it back. Regardless, it went right through.

How would national reciprocity affect a NH non-res without a home state permit? Strictly speaking, there would no longer be a need for a non-res permit.

 

[Horrible]

My NH application went out without a MA LTC withing a couple days of the ruling. I just wrote in to see the attached ruling and included a copy of the full ruling. I figured there was no way they'd have the process updated and at least this way they might check before just sending it back. Regardless, it went right through.

How would national reciprocity affect a NH non-res without a home state permit? Strictly speaking, there would no longer be a need for a non-res permit.

May be OBE if they pass Constitutional Carry in NH. This was vetoed by ole Mags. Now Senator Ole Mags. There is a new Gubnah now!

 

[Rob Boudrie]

NY residents would demand that their resident laws change.

Yeah, like how the residents of Brookline have risen up because people from about 345 or so of the 350 other towns in MA can carry in Brookline.

Or they would just acquire non-resident licenses from other states so they could lawfully carry in their own state.

Years ago, before "shall issue" in MI, it was common practice in that state for unconnected unimportant MI residents to obtain a FL CCW. The effectiveness of this was diminished when the MI AG enacted an "AG law" that MI would only recognize out of state permits held by persons who were not MI residents.

 

[bullseye]

Republican lawmakers introduce bill to allow guns in airports following Ft. Lauderdale shooting

https://t.co/1brNKaxk4b

 

[CatSnoutSoup]

It was then that Amanda revealed her shockingly simple method for eliminating unwanted arm fat!

 

[soloman02]

According to the sponsor, this bill WILL apply to non-resident permits. If that survives the antis (especially in the communist states) are going to go into full retard meltdown mode.

Rep. Richard Hudson (R., N.C.) clarified on Wednesday that his national concealed carry reciprocity bill would apply to permits issued by states to non-residents.

After Hudson introduced the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 last week, questions were raised about whether it would apply to permits issued by some states to non-residents. In an interview with the Free Beacon, Hudson confirmed that permits issued by any state to residents or non-residents would have to be recognized by all other states under his legislation.

“My legislative intent is to ensure a non-resident carry permit is recognized, and I’ve confirmed this with legislative counsel and Judiciary Committee staff,” Hudson said.

Many gun owners in states that use a “may issue” permitting process, such as California or New Jersey, are not able to obtain concealed carry permits from their home state—even if they’ve passed a background check and met the training requirements—since the final decision in those states is left at the discretion of government officials. However, those same gun owners may be able to obtain a non-resident permit from a state with different gun laws. Under Hudson’s proposal, that permit would allow them to carry across the country—including in their home state.

That means an individual from Washington, D.C., where concealed carry permits are difficult to obtain even for those who complete the required training and pass a background check, could get a concealed carry permit from Virginia that would allow them to legally carry in the district. Individuals with permits from other states would still be required to follow local laws dictating where concealed carry is prohibited, for example in government buildings or on school property.

Hudson’s bill is an effort to simplify the rules for carrying firearms across state lines. Currently, each state decides which states’ permits it will recognize. Some states recognize all state permits. Some states don’t recognize any permits from other states. Many recognize only some state permits.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/national-reciprocity-bill-will-apply-non-resident-gun-carry-permits/

 

[Beretta92FS]

Sounds great, but a permit to carry doesn't mean an individual would be able to legally purchase a firearm in their home state. No point having a carry permit if you have nothing to carry.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Sounds great, but a permit to carry doesn't mean an individual would be able to legally purchase a firearm in their home state. No point having a carry permit if you have nothing to carry.

A NYC resident would have to get a NYC permit w/permit to purchase, and would need at minimum a "premises only" permit to do so. I'd be willing to bet that the NYPD licensing unit will make "premises permits" much harder to get if they end up in a situation where such persons can carry them on a UT or FL permit.

Many years ago there was a move to render restrictions on NYC pistol permits moot via legislative action. Mayor Koch announced that if that bill passed all premises/target restricted permits in NYC would be immediately revoked.

The NYPD will play whatever games are necessary to keep the proletariat disarmed. Remember, the question is always "Are you helpless enough to be safe?".

 

[firestorm]

Sounds great, but a permit to carry doesn't mean an individual would be able to legally purchase a firearm in their home state. No point having a carry permit if you have nothing to carry.

Outside of Mass you don't need a LTC to purchase. In Mass you wouldn't be able to purchase ammo without a state LTC but there aren't many places where you need a license for simple possession of guns or ammo. So it fixes issues of places like CA or NYC where getting a CCW permit is basically impossible unless connected. This way the normal people can get a NH or FL LTC and then have the right to carry at home.

As to what Rob said I don't know how that works but is that permit required to purchase at all or just to store the gun at home? It seems like that would be a slam dunk case if people are being denied the right to own at home just because they might be allowed to carry by federal law. Heller is right on point on that as far as ownership and keeping at home being protected by the 2nd.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

As to what Rob said I don't know how that works but is that permit required to purchase at all or just to store the gun at home?

In NY, Yes.

It seems like that would be a slam dunk case if people are being denied the right to own at home just because they might be allowed to carry by federal law.

The courts have already ruled (post-Heller) that the $1000ish fee to get a NYC premises permit, and the few hundred a year to keep it, are "reasonable".

The MA SJC has ruled that a prohibition on firearms possession is not protected by Heller if that prohibition is a regulatory burden rather than a punishment, even if the regulatory burden is cruel and unusual. (Read Chardin for the full incongruent diatribe).

 

[firestorm]

In NY, Yes.

The courts have already ruled (post-Heller) that the $1000ish fee to get a NYC premises permit, and the few hundred a year to keep it, are "reasonable".

The MA SJC has ruled that a prohibition on firearms possession is not protected by Heller if that prohibition is a regulatory burden rather than a punishment, even if the regulatory burden is cruel and unusual. (Read Chardin for the full incongruent diatribe).

I knew about the mass nonsense but I didn't know it was that bad in NYC. Unfortunately just like with the hearing protection act its better to have the law and then try to fix issues at the local level than to say "Well, it won't fix my crappy state screwing me over so nobody should have it."

 

[strangenh]

In NY, Yes.

The courts have already ruled (post-Heller) that the $1000ish fee to get a NYC premises permit, and the few hundred a year to keep it, are "reasonable".

Sure, "courts" but not "the Court." That has not made it to SCOTUS and likely wouldn't survive review there before, let alone with (hopefully) the now open seat filled.