This is a discussion on National Reciprocity part Deux within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; this might even pass No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: HR 822: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced (Updated)...
But then the states that are big on issuing non-resident permits will loose a nice revenue stream.
It would be nice to not have to play the "which states honor my permit, and how do I get from here to there" game.
The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.
I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.
The first effort I could not get behind.
This version though is drafted well being straight forward in manner allowing states continued right to maintain their own conditions without introducing a federal assignment or condition of licensure.
Best of all there is really nothing in this for antis to get bent about as it doesn't enable any one to carry anywhere as outside their resident state who by BOTH resident state AND visiting state statute they could not otherwise do so, while as within current FEDERAL firearm laws.
This is perfect.
However now you have allowed the federal government to regulate states business.... it is a fine line. Not to mention they take it over, regulate the heck out of it and if they can make the law, they can take it away too.. I dont like the federal government having their hands in ANYTHING outside of what they are supposed to be doing ( national security/foreign relations) and can't do that right either.
I think I know what they are trying to say, but wow, this is awkward wording---
"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—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or"
Hrmm, if something like this passed, I wonder what happens to the states that don't issue or issue restricted CCWs. Now you'd have out of staters being able to carry but not their own residents. Sounds like a whole new set of lawsuits.
"I got a lot of problems with you people!" - Frank Costanza
How would this work for California,and other "May Issue" States?
I could live with this. The only individuals this would hurt would be Vermont residents, which do not have a permit system at all. Alaska and Arizon do still issue permits to those who want one. I imagine states that do a heavy business in non-resident permits won't be too happy with it though. It virtually puts an end to the need for non-resident permits.
Freedom doesn't come free. It is bought and paid for by the lives and blood of our men and women in uniform.
NRA Life Member
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
Nunn v. State GA 1848
"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 "
No mention in this bill exists referencing the validity of non-resident permits. At least I didn't see it in there.
Its well intentioned and could be helpful, but I think VT would have to start issuing or there folks wouldn't be able to rely on this proposed law as currently drafted. (Assuming I'm reading it correctly.)
(Added a moment later, boy, right now such a law would really help me out with my summer travel plans.)
I believe any permit that will allow you to carry in your home state will do....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—
‘‘(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 2nd amendment of the constitution of the united states of america clearly states:
As it stands, states have taken it upon themselves to REVOKE this right from citizens. It is not different than if states had passed a law saying that you need a permit and a background check in order to be allowed to make "free speech."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
So no, it's not "giving the federal government the power to make laws that apply in every state"....that was a power that the federal govt had since the day the country was founded. Rather it is recognizing that states have already violated federal law by passing contradictory laws that overstep their boundaries to take away our basic constitutional rights...and trying to set the matter right.
"In a world of compromise, some don't." -HK
I am trying to figure out if in NJ non-residents will be allowed to carry, but as a resident i will not. Even if I was to get a Non-res permit from lets say FL?