Gray Peterson
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
I posted this over at The High Road on the discussion about the CCW reciprocity bill. My only issue with the bill was with the exclusion of open carry. However, I had a logical thought process go through my head in thinking about it. Though it excludes open carry from the protection, I believe that this bill will actually help open carriers. Here is my thoughts on the subject that I posted at THR:
Well, you would need only one license for CONCEALED carry. To me that's my only complaint, the bill doesn't cover someone who's visiting Minnesota and carrying on a license not recognized by Minnesota (there are currently 15 states recognized fully for both open and concealed carry), they can only conceal carry, not open carry or they would not be protected from the state law that generally prohibits carry.
It sort of sucks, however I am not too concerned. The gold star open carry states I don't need to worry about, they have no laws against open carry. The only time I really have to worry about it are the licensed open carry states and the ones that are anomalous (open carry on foot ok, carry in vehicle only with license or no full preemption).
Any discretionary licensed open carry states (Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, DC, Rhode Island (AG Issue), New Jersey) are either impossible to get anyway, have no reciprocity or recognition anyway, or would just revoke your discretionary license if you open carry. It sucks, but that's the way it goes. On the other hand, the point of revoking someone's license is to threaten their ability to carry entirely, or to threaten their ability to conceal during certain social situations that may not allow open carry. This bill would remove that sword of Damocles that discretionary licensed open carry states have over those who are lucky enough to have licenses from them (for example, they reside in a pro-gun jurisdiction of an anti-gun state, but said pro-gun issuer doesn't like open carry and threatens to revoke your license).
Shall-issue licensed open carry states, such as Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah, either recognize all out of state licenses, or have reciprocity/limited recognition statute. GA, ND, and MN have reciprocity agreements with either Utah or Florida, so I'm good to go for open carry there if I so choose. The other states in this list already recognize all out of state licenses for both open and concealed carry (a few of the states may restrict their own residents from being able to use out of state licenses).
The anomalous ones (open carry on foot, license required for car) I can deal with by acquiring a reciprocal license (Florida's a big one) or a license from that state (Good example would be getting a NH non-resident LTCF, or getting a Florida license to cover you in Pennsylvania, or getting a Utah license to cover in Washington State).
To wit, you have to think of these bills as a "layer cake of protection". If you lose not-withstanding protection by open carrying, you're subject to the state law that you're carrying in. If you have a license recognized by the state you're open carrying in, or have one of the state's licenses, you're covered and don't need the protection.
Basically, this is to allow you to carry concealed for personal protection in those stubborn anti-gun enclaves like New York, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, DC, and Hawaii who will not bow to the constitution and allow carrying for personal protection. Concealed carry only supporters and even primary open carriers such as myself should support this. This will give the CCW-only folk what they want, and if anyone wants to open carry in multiple states, they can simply get the licenses to be able to open carry.
Even though I strongly dislike open carry being excluded from the protection, since I'm sacrificing nothing (open carrying will be the same now as later as far as laws and licenses), if this bill passes we would gain the ability to conceal carry across the entire country in every state, and put pressure on the stubborn anti-gun enclaves to shape up. Perhaps in the process, create a few more shall-issue licensed open carry states.
----------------
I know some of you might question why I would support licensed open carry. In states like Maryland, there are bills in consideration to make the state shall-issue, all it does is remove the discretion from the state police or issuing agency. It doesn't touch anything else.
It would be really funny if Maryland does finally go over the top and go shall-issue, for people to start open carrying in Baltimore, Montgomery, or Prince George counties?. Can you imagine the crime rate drop from the news, and seeing a small smattering of people excercising that?
I believe that we should push for these bills. This would open up more states for us to open carry in the long run.
I posted this over at The High Road on the discussion about the CCW reciprocity bill. My only issue with the bill was with the exclusion of open carry. However, I had a logical thought process go through my head in thinking about it. Though it excludes open carry from the protection, I believe that this bill will actually help open carriers. Here is my thoughts on the subject that I posted at THR:
Well, you would need only one license for CONCEALED carry. To me that's my only complaint, the bill doesn't cover someone who's visiting Minnesota and carrying on a license not recognized by Minnesota (there are currently 15 states recognized fully for both open and concealed carry), they can only conceal carry, not open carry or they would not be protected from the state law that generally prohibits carry.
It sort of sucks, however I am not too concerned. The gold star open carry states I don't need to worry about, they have no laws against open carry. The only time I really have to worry about it are the licensed open carry states and the ones that are anomalous (open carry on foot ok, carry in vehicle only with license or no full preemption).
Any discretionary licensed open carry states (Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, Iowa, Hawaii, DC, Rhode Island (AG Issue), New Jersey) are either impossible to get anyway, have no reciprocity or recognition anyway, or would just revoke your discretionary license if you open carry. It sucks, but that's the way it goes. On the other hand, the point of revoking someone's license is to threaten their ability to carry entirely, or to threaten their ability to conceal during certain social situations that may not allow open carry. This bill would remove that sword of Damocles that discretionary licensed open carry states have over those who are lucky enough to have licenses from them (for example, they reside in a pro-gun jurisdiction of an anti-gun state, but said pro-gun issuer doesn't like open carry and threatens to revoke your license).
Shall-issue licensed open carry states, such as Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Utah, either recognize all out of state licenses, or have reciprocity/limited recognition statute. GA, ND, and MN have reciprocity agreements with either Utah or Florida, so I'm good to go for open carry there if I so choose. The other states in this list already recognize all out of state licenses for both open and concealed carry (a few of the states may restrict their own residents from being able to use out of state licenses).
The anomalous ones (open carry on foot, license required for car) I can deal with by acquiring a reciprocal license (Florida's a big one) or a license from that state (Good example would be getting a NH non-resident LTCF, or getting a Florida license to cover you in Pennsylvania, or getting a Utah license to cover in Washington State).
To wit, you have to think of these bills as a "layer cake of protection". If you lose not-withstanding protection by open carrying, you're subject to the state law that you're carrying in. If you have a license recognized by the state you're open carrying in, or have one of the state's licenses, you're covered and don't need the protection.
Basically, this is to allow you to carry concealed for personal protection in those stubborn anti-gun enclaves like New York, California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Maryland, DC, and Hawaii who will not bow to the constitution and allow carrying for personal protection. Concealed carry only supporters and even primary open carriers such as myself should support this. This will give the CCW-only folk what they want, and if anyone wants to open carry in multiple states, they can simply get the licenses to be able to open carry.
Even though I strongly dislike open carry being excluded from the protection, since I'm sacrificing nothing (open carrying will be the same now as later as far as laws and licenses), if this bill passes we would gain the ability to conceal carry across the entire country in every state, and put pressure on the stubborn anti-gun enclaves to shape up. Perhaps in the process, create a few more shall-issue licensed open carry states.
----------------
I know some of you might question why I would support licensed open carry. In states like Maryland, there are bills in consideration to make the state shall-issue, all it does is remove the discretion from the state police or issuing agency. It doesn't touch anything else.
It would be really funny if Maryland does finally go over the top and go shall-issue, for people to start open carrying in Baltimore, Montgomery, or Prince George counties?. Can you imagine the crime rate drop from the news, and seeing a small smattering of people excercising that?
I believe that we should push for these bills. This would open up more states for us to open carry in the long run.
