• 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.

Concealed carry across state lines

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
I have a lot of random thoughts on this issue that all tie together, but not cohesively (especially at this hour), so please bear with me.

We know the story of Shaneen Allen, the Philadelphia woman who was arrested in New Jersey for concealed carrying a hand gun that she had a permit in Pennsylvania for. The issue, of course, was the NJ did not recognize PA's permit.

Ever since then, I have been thinking about this issue, and why it's even an issue. We have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is NATIONAL. So how can states choose not to recognize another state's licensing of concealed carriers. Of course, I firmly believe that the permits themselves are an infringement on our right, so I refuse to get one. At this time, I mostly open carry, but sometimes concealed carry if the situation demands it. Yes, I admit it. But that's a secondary point, though it kind of ties in later.

So, I have family in California that I sometimes go back to visit from Oregon. I'd rather not go back ever again, but sometimes I must; not because I don't love my family, but because I hate CA, the state I lived in for the first 36 years of my life. CA, as most know, has some ****** gun laws. One of them is that OC is almost completely banned, except in rural areas. Doesn't help me, as my family all lives in cities. Second, they do not recognize any other state's concealed carry license. Third, they do not issue non-resident permits. So basically, if you visit the state, you must be unarmed.

Isn't this a violation of our 2nd Amendment right? My rights do not end at their border. So how can they say that if I come to their state that I can no longer exercise my 2nd Amendment right? Even if I had a CHL, I still have no right to carry as a visitor to that state. No one does, from anywhere in the country.

So how do we get this changed? Lawsuit, saying that the 2nd Amendment rights of a citizen of the US don't become invalid when they enter a state where they don't live? Someone being a "test case", much like Shaneen Allen? It's almost a shame those charges were dropped rather than going to trial, because that would have been good case law.

Personally, when I go there, I will likely carry concealed anyway for two reasons: I refuse to disarm, and the city my family is in has enough crime that I'm more afraid of that than being arrested. Assuming I practice good CC techniques, no one should ever know that I'm even carrying in violation of their apparently unConstitutional laws. And hopefully I'll never have to use it, as that would give me away. I'd rather not become the test case myself, but I also don't want to become an unarmed victim.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The problem is the constitution was written as a law against the feds. Not as restrictions against the states.

The states are supposed to be sovereign entities. The nationalizing happened since Lincoln.

I don't support any infringement upon rights, if we are going to argue them though we should be doing it under the proper context.
 

Eeyore

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2007
Messages
551
Location
the meanest city in the stupidest state
The other issue is that is concealment is generally considered the "privilege" versus a right. Some state constitutions recognize the right to bear arms but explicitly state that concealed carry may be regulated by their legislature.

The problem is in places like NJ, CA, TX, MD, etc., where the right to bear arms in the "default" manner (openly) is expressly forbidden. This leaves only the "privileged" form (concealed), which they can control however rigidly they see fit. So the real question is, "How can some states be allowed to restrict a fundamental right by limiting exercise of it to an approved manner, and then demand a permit to do it?" The answer to that is much more complicated and probably varies from one jurisdiction to another. Maybe the right lawsuits haven't been brought. Maybe it's activist judges. Maybe some combination.
 
Last edited:

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
It is certainly a frustration. Barring a sweeping SCOTUS ruling, the only answer is going to be a continued chipping away at the restriction scheme at the federal and individual state level. As a temporary and incremental measure a national CC reciprocity act has a certain allure although I do understand the strange bedfellows of the most stringent antis and most stringent 2A supporters opposing it.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
The problem is the constitution was written as a law against the feds. Not as restrictions against the states.

The states are supposed to be sovereign entities. The nationalizing happened since Lincoln.

I don't support any infringement upon rights, if we are going to argue them though we should be doing it under the proper context.

That is a false argument. The 4th Amendment protects us against state and local law enforcement just as much as it does against the feds. Our rights don't only pertain to the federal level. They are universal, whether state constitutions include them or not.
The other issue is that is concealment is generally considered the "privilege" versus a right. Some state constitutions recognize the right to bear arms but explicitly state that concealed carry may be regulated by their legislature.

The problem is in places like NJ, CA, TX, MD, etc., where the right to bear arms in the "default" manner (openly) is expressly forbidden. This leaves only the "privileged" form (concealed), which they can control however rigidly they see fit. So the real question is, "How can some states be allowed to restrict a fundamental right by limiting exercise of it to an approved manner, and then demand a permit to do it?" The answer to that is much more complicated and probably varies from one jurisdiction to another. Maybe the right lawsuits haven't been brought. Maybe it's activist judges. Maybe some combination.

But the courts have ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside the home. Concealed carry is bearing arms, even if not visible. It is a right, not a privilege, even if some have chosen to treat it as such. This is not a states issue, any more than the 1st, 4th, or 5th Amendments can be restricted by state or local governments. The Constitution gives powers to the federal government, and delegates the rest to the states, but our rights trump all.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...We have the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That is NATIONAL. So how can states choose not to recognize another state's licensing of concealed carriers. Of course, I firmly believe that the permits themselves are an infringement on our right, so I refuse to get one. At this time, I mostly open carry, but sometimes concealed carry if the situation demands it. Yes, I admit it. But that's a secondary point,...

I don't think it's the secondary point. It's the primary one. At the very moment we let them get away with licensing a right, we lost all control over them doing it differently from one another.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
davet, besides the concept of the state(s) imposing what you believe are consititutional injustices, i believe i might refrain from stating on a public forum
quote: Personally, when I go there, I will likely carry concealed anyway for two reasons: I refuse to disarm, and the city my family is in has enough crime that I'm more afraid of that than being arrested. Assuming I practice good CC techniques, no one should ever know that I'm even carrying in violation of their apparently unConstitutional laws. And hopefully I'll never have to use it, as that would give me away. I'd rather not become the test case myself, but I also don't want to become an unarmed victim. unquote.

quote, But the courts have ruled that the right to keep and bear arms exists outside the home. Concealed carry is bearing arms, even if not visible. It is a right...unquote.

however, my understanding of the court's decision(s) regarding the right to bear arms do not prevail to your leap of faith you expressed that it pertains to concealed carry also!!

two very illogical presumptions which could/will eventually cause you to be a test case, especially with your statement in your initial posting which seems you are seeking a confrontation as indicated by the bold, underlined, and italicized statement above!

ipse
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
That is a false argument. The 4th Amendment protects us against state and local law enforcement just as much as it does against the feds. Our rights don't only pertain to the federal level. They are universal, whether state constitutions include them or not.

Don't get me wrong our rights are universal. The constitution was written only as a check on federal powers. State constitutions were to be the check on state powers. The states would have never ratified the constitution otherwise.
 

XD40sc

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
402
Location
NC
Depends on the 'line' you are crossing.

Some lines it is a non-event, carry on

Some lines it is a felony, your day is going to suck.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
The line I'm talking about is CA. By their laws, visitors to their state have no 2nd Amendment right to bear arms: OC is effectively illegal, they do not recognize other state's CC permits, and they do not give out non-resident permits.
 

SW40VE-OC

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2015
Messages
51
Location
Sparks, NV
So, DaveT319, if you decide to cross into CA while carrying, whether you agree to the way they have proven to be against 2A or not, be sure to have your lawyer report later on how your court case is going. Sure, maybe it won't get that far, but are you willing to risk your livelihood and family happiness on you making a bad decision like that?
I agree with solus that broadcasting (IMO, apparent) intentions is a mistake.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Bottom line, if you're authorized to CC in both states, then you're authorized to cross the line between those two states.

In all situations, if you're entering a more restrictive state, such as one requiring you to separate the firearm from the ammo or carry unloaded while travelling, then reconfigure before crossing the state line. If the situation is reverse, reconfigure after crossing the state line.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
I just wonder why we accept that. That one state is allowed to infringe on our right, and we just go along with it. My Constitutional right to carry doesn't stop because I go to another state.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
I just wonder why we accept that. That one state is allowed to infringe on our right, and we just go along with it. My Constitutional right to carry doesn't stop because I go to another state.

Because there are lot of people in our Bastilles who were in the right.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Bottom line, if you're authorized to CC in both states, then you're authorized to cross the line between those two states.

In all situations, if you're entering a more restrictive state, such as one requiring you to separate the firearm from the ammo or carry unloaded while travelling, then reconfigure before crossing the state line. If the situation is reverse, reconfigure after crossing the state line.

now as paul might say the rest of the story since9...he is not authorized to CC in either state!! remember the op stated in his first post, he does not have the proper credentials to CC anywhere in Oregon yet states he does so w/o a permit. further, he has already stated he will CC in California, even tho the practice if forbidden!

finally, nobody has addressed his perception that federal 2A of right to bear arms blends over to his right to ignore state mandates and carry conceal as his 'RIGHT' to bear arms even tho it goes against state mandates entirely.

ipse
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Well we all have been waiting for the perfect court case with the perfect arguments to be taken to the supreme court so they well have to rule that the 2nd means what the 2nd means.

Maybe the OP means to accomplish just that.
 

DaveT319

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2014
Messages
274
Location
Eugene, OR
Let me point something out again:
-CA does not recognize ANY other state's concealed carry permit
-CA does not issue non-resident concealed carry permits
-CA effectively has a ban on open carry (legal in some rural areas, but not in cities)

So even if I DID have my concealed carry license for THIS state, CA has effectively said that my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms within their borders does not exist since I'm not a resident of that state. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!

solus makes an "interesting" point:
finally, nobody has addressed his perception that federal 2A of right to bear arms blends over to his right to ignore state mandates and carry conceal as his 'RIGHT' to bear arms even tho it goes against state mandates entirely.
If such state mandates violate our Constitutional right, it should be considered invalid. It's not like states are free to violate our OTHER Constitutional rights, just because we aren't a resident of their state. My 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights don't cease to exist because I go to visit another state. The same must be true for the 2nd Amendment.

An unjust law should not be followed. We have a DUTY to not comply with such laws.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...An unjust law should not be followed. We have a DUTY to not comply with such laws.

Agreed. I'd send you postcards in prison.

Lots of people in prison have a clean conscience.

I'm not being facetious. I truly hope you get away with it, EVERY single time.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Let me point something out again:
-CA does not recognize ANY other state's concealed carry permit
-CA does not issue non-resident concealed carry permits
-CA effectively has a ban on open carry (legal in some rural areas, but not in cities)
So even if I DID have my concealed carry license for THIS state, CA has effectively said that my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms within their borders does not exist since I'm not a resident of that state. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!
solus makes an "interesting" point:
If such state mandates violate our Constitutional right, it should be considered invalid. It's not like states are free to violate our OTHER Constitutional rights, just because we aren't a resident of their state. My 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights don't cease to exist because I go to visit another state. The same must be true for the 2nd Amendment.
An unjust law should not be followed. We have a DUTY to not comply with such laws.

dave, you keep stating your rights are being violated but you are not a CA resident so they don't care. the same situation exists for citizens in DC, NY, and other eastern states.

right to bear arms does not equate to concealed.

if you're that upset become a test case and let your attorney know how you're doing.

ipse
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Let me point something out again:
-CA does not recognize ANY other state's concealed carry permit
-CA does not issue non-resident concealed carry permits
-CA effectively has a ban on open carry (legal in some rural areas, but not in cities)

So even if I DID have my concealed carry license for THIS state, CA has effectively said that my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms within their borders does not exist since I'm not a resident of that state. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!

solus makes an "interesting" point:

If such state mandates violate our Constitutional right, it should be considered invalid. It's not like states are free to violate our OTHER Constitutional rights, just because we aren't a resident of their state. My 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendment rights don't cease to exist because I go to visit another state. The same must be true for the 2nd Amendment.

An unjust law should not be followed. We have a DUTY to not comply with such laws.

That's all nice Dave but that well not stop you from becoming bubbas boy friend in the big house.
 
Top