• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Petition to Amend LEOSA for Correctional Officer's

C

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
eye95 said:
The way the State in which the GFSZ is located is licensing the carry is via legislation whereby they recognize the license or permit from another State. That legislation gives permission ("licenses") the carry.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you're saying.

The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
 
WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Citizen said:
Oh, I see what you're saying.

The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
Click to expand...

The states do verify, or the reciprocity would not work. They are recognizing that background checks are done before permits are issued, or the permits are not even good for the state they are issued in. A person with a CHP has had a federal, local, and state check before a permit is issued, the same is true for all the states that NC recognizes, so a check has been done. The person with the permit is in not only in the state database, but the federal too. Which is one of the problems I have with permission slips.

So if the checks have been done, as required by state law for the home state, and the state being visited recognizes that permit, it is a license to do so. Or at least to conceal carry which is what is recognized by the state where the GFSZ is located.

I believe this is one of the problems that Fl ran into with reciprocity, because there may have been some inconsistencies in the meeting of requirements.
 
Last edited:
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Citizen said:
Oh, I see what you're saying.

The federal statute requires law enforcement to verify the carrier is legal to possess before the license is issued. That knocks out all legislative blanket permissions. So, reciprocity between states is out.

Non-resident licenses are the only thing that could squeak through, I think, assuming the given non-resident license is only issued after law-enforcement checks to verify the carrier is legal to possess.
Click to expand...

If the State issuing the permission slip requires the check to issue that slip, the requirement of the law is met for persons holding a slip from such a reciprocated State. The argument has flaws for issuing States that do not perform checks when using the slip in reciprocating States. Then again, the law wouldn't allow carry in that State by resident slip-holders.

This, of course, ignores completely the unconstitutionality of checking to see if a person is not barred from an activity before "permitting" him to do it, as opposed to charging him when (actually, if) it is discovered that he broke the law. But that is another argument, one in which almost every one of us would find ourselves on the same side.
 
eye95

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I don't know that I am right. I just believe that, before a reasonable judge, it is a likely winner--that is assuming that the whole law is not tossed as unconstitutional (that would be the most correct outcome).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
From the law cited by Citizen
, 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;
Click to expand...
It seems to me that the operative word is 'the' which I believe refers to a LEA of the state in which the GFSZ is located. Further more, in Missouri:

Unlawful use of weapons--exceptions--penalties.

571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly:

(10) Carries a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any school, onto any school bus, or onto the premises of any function or activity sponsored or sanctioned by school officials or the district school board.

3. ......Subdivision (10) of subsection 1 of this section does not apply if the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed by a person while traversing school premises for the purposes of transporting a student to or from school, or possessed by an adult for the purposes of facilitation of a school-sanctioned firearm-related event or club event.

4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM
Click to expand...
Subsection three permits carry whether permited or not as long as you [stay in your car] (presumption on my part) based on how my local LEOs will approach a armed citizen on school premises. I have discussed this with a LEO buddy of mine and he would not approach a citizen if he were OCing to get his kids but he is the rare exception in his agency he regrettably admits.

Subsection four exempts OOS permit holders.

I tend to think that Missouri views a OOS permit in the same light as a Missouri issued CCW endorsement. I would (should) be exempt from the GFSZ federal law, in Missouri, because another state has performed the check as would Missouri else reciprocity would not be given to the OSS permit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top