URGENT ALERT: House Vote Coming Soon on CCW Reciprocity Bill

[Daylen]

Before anyone listens to NAGR they should look up and find out what he has actually DONE; NOTHING. He's trying to get donations for sending out emails.

 

[John Canuck]

It doesn't. It only helps out of state residents carry in Kalifornia AFAIK.

Again, as I thought.

 

[ken243]

The bill would require all states except for IL and DC to honor all other state's CPL's. I used Utah as a sample. One can obtain a CPL from Utah even if they are not a resident. Therefore a California resident could get a Utah CPL and carry in California. That is how 2A rights can be given back to CA residents. Where in the bill does it say only a resident CPL will be granted reciprocity? And, I agree. We can "what if" all day long.

 

[kcgunfan]

The bill would require all states except for IL and DC to honor all other state's CPL's. I used Utah as a sample. One can obtain a CPL from Utah even if they are not a resident. Therefore a California resident could get a Utah CPL and carry in California. That is how 2A rights can be given back to CA residents. Where in the bill does it say only a resident CPL will be granted reciprocity? And, I agree. We can "what if" all day long.

It doesn't appear to say that a only a resident CCW endorsement is given reciprocity. But, you are confusing being in your home state with not being in your home state. This bill changes nothing with respect to being in your home state, just with what you are permitted to do when you leave your home state.

 

[ken243]

It doesn't appear to say that a only a resident CCW endorsement is given reciprocity. But, you are confusing being in your home state with not being in your home state. This bill changes nothing with respect to being in your home state, just with what you are permitted to do when you leave your home state.

Thank you but I guess that is just not what I read from it. Maybe some things need to be clarified. Again, I see nothing that details this would not be allowed. So I gather if it is not allowed that is would be acceptable.

 

[kcgunfan]

Thank you but I guess that is just not what I read from it. Maybe some things need to be clarified. Again, I see nothing that details this would not be allowed. So I gather if it is not allowed that is would be acceptable.

It's in this part here:

`(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that–

If you are from state X, and you have a Permit from state Y, and state Z honors permits from state Y, you can still carry concealed there. it doesn't change anything.

 

[ken243]

Maybe this the part we are all hung up on...

"Instead, the bill would make clear that a person cannot use this federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state’s permit license, unless their own state’s laws permit this."

My uderstanding is that the state's law of reciprocity is out the window if this bill goes to law. So this senatence would be contradicting the rest of the law. Confusing.

 

[ken243]

It's in this part here:



If you are from state X, and you have a Permit from state Y, and state Z honors permits from state Y, you can still carry concealed there. it doesn't change anything.

I see. Thank you very much! So it re-affirms current state laws??? :banghead: Ok... Well, I guess I just did not read it correctly. Thanks again for pointing that out. I sure had my hopes up. I just didn't read it that way. Might have to talk to a lawyer about this one.

 

[kcgunfan]

Maybe this the part we are all hung up on...

"Instead, the bill would make clear that a person cannot use this federal grant of reciprocity to carry a concealed weapon in his or her own state of residence under another state’s permit license, unless their own state’s laws permit this."

My uderstanding is that the state's law of reciprocity is out the window if this bill goes to law. So this senatence would be contradicting the rest of the law. Confusing.

That's not the text of the law, that's some person's paraphrasing of it. The phrasing is not exactly correct also. It explicitly says that this law will not affect anything about carrying in your own state, states are still free to regulate that. They just can't regulate people from another state if they come to visit.

 

[NMBill]

State regs still rule

Visitors from other states will still be bound by local CCW laws -- prohibitions against carry in schools, bars or whatever.

 

[ocholsteroc]

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Schumer Registration and Rights Denial Bill

Friday, November 18, 2011

On Tuesday November 16, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism held a hearing on Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) S. 436. Dubbed by anti-gunners the “Fix Gun Checks Act,” rather than “fix” the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the legislation would eliminate private sales and gun shows as we know them and expand the range of persons prohibited from owning firearms.
For much of the hearing, Sen. Schumer and his witnesses, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Chief Advisor for Policy and Strategic Planning John Feinblatt, were reluctant to touch upon the drastic changes to federal gun laws contained in the bill. Instead, they pretended that the bill would ensure that states and federal agencies provide more accurate information to the NICS database.

Shredding through this misrepresentation of the bill was Second Amendment scholar Prof. David Kopel of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7179


I heard it was a trojan horse from the start.

 

[Dreamer]

Hmmm... looks like Ron Paul supported it for consideration. Kind of surprising due to the 10A implications but I'll have to see what he does if it's actually brought up for a vote.

The way they will argue out of the 10A situation is by stating that reciprocity (or refusal to recognize valid out-of-state permits) DIRECTLY effects, impedes and restricts "interstate commerce" and therefore, the Federal Government DOES have jurisdiction under the "interstate commerce clause"--the same nebulous and easily-interpreted clause that allows the Feds to regulate or dictate nearly ALL law that deals with interstate commerce--no matter how spurious or detached from reality that may be...

Personally, I do not like the idea of a law telling the States or the People what they CAN do--I only want our government to enact prohibitory laws--NOT "laws of permission".

If anything, the congress should simply work toward Incorporating the ENTIRE Bill of Rights against the States and municipalities. That would fix a LOT of this silliness...

 

[Barnett3006]

Another point about CA...and this is just from my understanding

CA Requires all handguns to be:

1. On the "CA Approved Safe Handgun" list or its illegal.
2. Registered with the state DOJ or its illegal.

So, and again from my understanding, if a non-resident with a non-CA CPL did want to carry in CA he would have to have a "CA safe gun" (LOL) and it would NEED to be registered with the State or it would be illegal regardless of weather or not the State was forced by the feds to recognize his non-CA CPL.

Having the CA safe gun isn't that big of an issue, I suppose, but can someone in...say Nevada, register a handgun with CA from NV with the intent to carry said gun into and back out of CA?

 

[carsontech]

HR 822 and "Licensed Open Carry States"

Something else to bring up... HR 822 and how it will affect states that only allow open carry via a permit/license.

See this map to see which states only allow open carry with some sort of firearms permit/license:
http://opencarry.org/opencarry.html

The verbiage in HR 822 seems to only force states to recognize all other states' permits when it pertains to carrying concealed.

If HR 822 passes, who will be able open carry in the "licensed open carry" states? Resident permit holders and non-resdient permit holders that have permits which are currently honored (as it is now)? Every state that has some sort of "license to carry" system? Resident permit holders only?

"Licensed open carry" states such as UT, IA, and IN already recognize every other state's carry permits. Some other "licensed open carry" states recognize a certain amount of other states' carry permits. MD and all the "licensed open carry" states around it do not recognize any other states permits.

Again, if HR 822 passes, will "licensed open carry" states still honor other states' "licenses to carry" that they currently do, as a permit to open carry... or will they have to recognize every other states "license to carry", as a permit to open carry... or will HR 822 hinder the original reciprocity states have currently and make it so only resident permit holders of a "licensed open carry" state can open carry in that state?

Hopefully I was clear in my comments and questions.

Anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

 

[PT111]

Bill HR 822 in a more readable format. I took out the confusion parts of the bill below to try and see what it actually says. I don't think any of the parts I took out actually change anything other than defining certain parts as to Federal standards but this is the important parts of the bill from what I can tell.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.822.EH:/

a person who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may possess or carry a concealed handgun in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that--

`(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or`(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

The possession or carrying of a concealed handgun in a State shall be subject to the same conditions and limitations that apply to the possession or carrying of a concealed handgun by residents of the State who are licensed by the State to do so, or not prohibited by the State from doing so.

Three questions that I have are 1) I have heard that you have to have a resident license but this appears to me to cover non-resident licenses except in your resident state. For example if a TX resident has a UT permit then the UT permit will be covered under this bill in any state except TX and there it will be up to the state of TX to choose to honor it or not. 2) Question 2 is that since it says that an out-of-state permit will have applied the same conditions as an in-state permit wouldn't that include the school zones that are not restricted to in-state permits only? 3) If a VT resident obtains a non-resident permit wouldn't that cover them for all states except VT where a permit is not needed?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[ALOC1911]

Here's what this bill says in a nutshell. If a state offers concealed weapon permits/licenses to it's own residents then they must honor any other state's concealed weapon permit/license.

 

[MAC702]

Another point about CA...and this is just from my understanding

CA Requires all handguns to be:

1. On the "CA Approved Safe Handgun" list or its illegal.
2. Registered with the state DOJ or its illegal.

So, and again from my understanding, if a non-resident with a non-CA CPL did want to carry in CA he would have to have a "CA safe gun" (LOL) and it would NEED to be registered with the State or it would be illegal regardless of weather or not the State was forced by the feds to recognize his non-CA CPL.

Having the CA safe gun isn't that big of an issue, I suppose, but can someone in...say Nevada, register a handgun with CA from NV with the intent to carry said gun into and back out of CA?

Let's remove the "carrying concealed" part from your question for a minute. Is it not legal to transport a handgun through CA? For example, I visit Washington and Oregon quite often. While I do NOT go through CA, let's say I wanted to for some insane reason. Can I not put my unloaded handgun in a locked case in the trunk, and drive through the state, even staying several days if I wanted to? Are you saying I would be required to have that handgun meet DOJ requirements and also be registered?

I had assumed not, since I am not a CA resident, but please correct me if I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time checking out their laws since I refuse to go there because of what I do know.

This is on topic because my point is that the allowance of possession would be the same whether it was being transported in the lockbox or carrying concealed post-HR822 adoption, right?

 

[Barnett3006]

Let's remove the "carrying concealed" part from your question for a minute. Is it not legal to transport a handgun through CA? For example, I visit Washington and Oregon quite often. While I do NOT go through CA, let's say I wanted to for some insane reason. Can I not put my unloaded handgun in a locked case in the trunk, and drive through the state, even staying several days if I wanted to? Are you saying I would be required to have that handgun meet DOJ requirements and also be registered?

I had assumed not, since I am not a CA resident, but please correct me if I am wrong. I don't spend a lot of time checking out their laws since I refuse to go there because of what I do know.

This is on topic because my point is that the allowance of possession would be the same whether it was being transported in the lockbox or carrying concealed post-HR822 adoption, right?

I tried to make some sense of CA's gun laws awhile ago, when I had my C&R FFL the BATFE sent me a book they published of all the Federal gun laws on the books and the gun laws of each State...I think CA had 100-some-odd small print, legal sized pages of on-the-books gun laws while the next state with the second most pages had something like 6. I gave up, BUT if all you are doing is traveling through CA and your gun is locked in the trunk and unloaded then you are legal according to the transportation provisions built into the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) which trumps state law.

I can't answer your last question until someone more knowledgeable then myself answers my question from my last post or corrects me in that my beliefs that a gun must be "CA safe" and registered.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

Can I not put my unloaded handgun in a locked case in the trunk, and drive through the state,

Yes, you can travel through the state from one place you may legally possess your handgun to another place you can legally possess your handgun.

even staying several days if I wanted to?

Where are you getting this from? If you are staying several days, then you would not be traveling to a place you can legally possess your handgun. You would be making a trip to California, staying several days, then making another trip out of California. Neither trip would be covered by the Federal protection, and even if it were you would have to leave your handgun locked in the trunk the entire time, where it would do you absolutely no good.

Are you saying I would be required to have that handgun meet DOJ requirements and also be registered?

In order to be able to legally possess your handgun inside the borders of California, it appears so. Also, you would not be protected from the Federal law regarding school zones regardless, unless you had a permit issued by California.

 

[MAC702]

...Where are you getting this from?...

You did see I was ASKING a question, right?

And the question is valid. Have there been clear guidelines on what constitutes "travel through?" For example, let's take a trip from Tucson, AZ to Seattle, WA, via I-5 for the northbound leg. As long as you are progressing on your trip, what's wrong with stops along the way, and is there an actual ruling on how long these stops can be?

You said stopping for a couple days constitutes another trip, and forfeits protection of "travelling through." Now the burden is on you. Where are you getting this from?