National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill - Page 5

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

This is a discussion on National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by 9MMare Some states have no training or knowlege requirements. Like mine. And there is no higher incidence in gun accidents/crimes between those ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 80
Like Tree53Likes

Thread: National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,074
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Some states have no training or knowlege requirements. Like mine. And there is no higher incidence in gun accidents/crimes between those states and those with stricter regulation. We've had some discussion on this in the past.
    Yes, and what is really weird is that Texas will recognize your license even though you have had no training and Texas requires training of its residents, but Washington State will NOT recognize a Texas license. I can think of almost no better example of why we need National Reciprocity.


  2. #62
    New Member Array Danlee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubs View Post
    No, I am saying the states' need to have the same requirements for CC. Why should someone carry if he/she has not taken a course like me for 8 hours? I just don't like the idea of people CC with no knowledge of the law and no proof of proficiency. Until then, it's a big no.
    So you think someone who has never touched a gun in their life takes an 8 hr course and is now "proficient"? Or someone who has owned and used firearms most of their life is now ok to carry because they took an 8 hr course?

  3. #63
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by Danlee View Post
    So you think someone who has never touched a gun in their life takes an 8 hr course and is now "proficient"? Or someone who has owned and used firearms most of their life is now ok to carry because they took an 8 hr course?
    As long as they know how the gun functions, and are responsible, they're good to go in my book.Odds are they won't need to use it, and if they do it'll be to scare someone off by brandishing it. Rarely will they need to actually discharge.
    "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

  4. #64
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    Agreed. There's no Federal beaurocracy created through this law, there's no "power grab". This will be enforced through the Federal Courts, and will simply enable law abiding citizens to avoid being arrested while in other states.
    "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

  5. #65
    Distinguished Member Array BigStick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Gig Harbor, WA
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by Hubs View Post
    No, I am saying the states' need to have the same requirements for CC. Why should someone carry if he/she has not taken a course like me for 8 hours? I just don't like the idea of people CC with no knowledge of the law and no proof of proficiency. Until then, it's a big no.
    So why should 8 hours be the minimum? 8 hours will most definitely not make you "proficient," so who gets to decide the level of training required? Don't get me wrong, I think that everyone who wants the responsibility that goes along with carrying a gun should take the necessary steps to get the proper training, but as others have said, since when do you need training to exercise a God given and inalienable right?

    We should not need permits or licenses at all, I just have a general distrust for how laws made now can set precedence for people to try to twist the laws against us in the future.
    Walk softly ...

  6. #66
    New Member Array vica153's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    10
    How many states already recognize the CPL of any state? How many states recognize the CPL from some states, but not others with seemingly no rhyme or reason?

    The previously mention example, WA does not recognize the Texas CPL even though the requirements in Texas go beyond that of WA. If anything, one would think it would be the other way around. Just having moved from a state with a CPL that is honored nearly everywhere possible, I'm really disappointed in the WA CPL. That type of idiocy in the twisted mess of legislature really makes me wish there was some sort of reciprocity at the federal level.

    However, the wording of the bill and making sure there are no extras attached to it is very important. There isn't anything in the bill that implies the federal government be involved with the CPLs more than they already are. Basically if you have a CPL, it's recognized in every state that allows concealed carry.

    This whole sentence (it looks like a paragraph, but its one huge run-non sentence) It starts to get a bit confusing at the end with all the commas. It makes it a bit difficult to really understand what its trying to say.

    ""
    (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--
    ""


    All guns get shipped at some point so that point is a bit moot. The next part about your states of residence leaves me confused. The 2 lines that follow should cover every state including your state of residence.

    ""
    `(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.


    ""

  7. #67
    Member Array Hubs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Johns Island, SC
    Posts
    261
    Quote Originally Posted by Danlee View Post
    So you think someone who has never touched a gun in their life takes an 8 hr course and is now "proficient"? Or someone who has owned and used firearms most of their life is now ok to carry because they took an 8 hr course?
    Well, when I was taking my 8 hour course there were people in my class who had never fired a gun and that kinda scared me. You can't drive a car legally without taking a test. Look, all I am saying is that people who CC should have some knowledge. I am very much in favor of 2nd Amendment rights but there are a lot of kooky people out there!
    Kimber UC II
    SA XD-45 SC
    1948 16g Remington Model 24
    Mossberg .410g shottie

  8. #68
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,704
    Quote Originally Posted by vica153 View Post

    ""
    (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--""



    All guns get shipped at some point so that point is a bit moot. The next part about your states of residence leaves me confused. The 2 lines that follow should cover every state including your state of residence.""


    `(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.


    ""



    ^^^^??????????????^^^^^^^^^^^^


    For cripe sake, the way that reads to me, it sounds as though you couldn't carry in your own state.

    I'm an Idiot sometimes when reading legalese, and other times it makes sense.

    Maybe MitchellCT or another legal-beagle will chime in, and clue the clueless.
    I would rather die with good men than hide with cowards
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy."

    M&Pc .357sig, 2340Sigpro .357sig

  9. #69
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,157
    I think what that second highlighted portion is saying is that this law will not interfere with a state's right to deal with its own residents. Thus, this law will not allow a resident of one state to carry, within his home state, based on a permit issued by another, unless the home state allows that.. Thus, a resident of my state, SD, would not be able to carry within SD using a UT permit. SD recognizes all permits now, but requires a resident to have an SD permit.
    ~~~~~
    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.

  10. #70
    Senior Member Array mastercapt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    502
    As far as training is concerned, I agree that taking an 8 hr course does not make one an "expert", however, he is trained more than someone who has taken no course.
    A friend who was employed at a gun shop tells of a man who carried in a smith 38 revolver, which was loaded and cocked. After all the store personnel drew their weapons, the man said " I cocked this gun and don't know how to uncock it without shooting it." They took him aside and gave him a quickie course in safe gun handling.
    In some states, the man mentioned above, could have a carry permit. Would you feel safe near him?
    Todays courses should also cover revolvers and autos.


    As for the recip bill, I know that when Uncle Sam gets into something, it gets F.U.B.A.R.. The states need to decide uniform requirements-- background check, fingerprints, photo, additional ID, training and/or qualifications, etc; where you can and cannot carry; and make them standards for all the states involved.
    Then, let the 2 holdout states know they are infringing my constitutional rights to have my gun in their states................

  11. #71
    Member Array NE45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    128
    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (following an 8 hour training course and an assessment by the government to determine their fitness to be armed),shall not be infringed.

    There I fixed that pesky thing.

    The Second Amendment is what it is and it doesn't say you have to jump through hoops to bear arms.

    As for this bill, the phrase, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help", comes to mind.
    One of the fundamental truths of the universe is that there isn't anything that cannot be improved with the addition of pirates, ninjas, strippers, midgets or monkeys.

    "A car door is not cover. In fact a car is not cover. Cement is." - military contractor in Iraq 2004

  12. #72
    Member Array Beachbumcook's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kansas City Metro
    Posts
    170
    Marriage Licenses = All states recognizes other states licenses

    Driver's Licenses = All states recognizes other states licenses

    CDL (Commercial Driver's License) = Recognized nationwide and tracked nationwide and by all states

    Vaccination/Health Records: Recognized by all states and universities to ensure public health & safety

    I see no reason why a nationwide CCW permit process and/or recognition would NOT be a good thing and make it easier for CCW permit holders and for LEO's to verify (like a CDL driver's license).

    I live in Kansas and I had to do the 8 hour class, proficiency shooting (which was easy) and pass the FBI and KBI (Kansas Bureau of Investigation).... not a big deal and just one of the things one has to do if they want a CCW permit (in Kansas that is).
    Springfield XDM 40cal
    Safariland Double Magazine Duty Pouch
    High Noon "Slide Guard" Holster - Leather (OWB)
    BladeTech "Eclipse" Holster - Kydex (OWB)
    Aker Reinforced Gun Belt (Leather & Polymer)
    Wilderness Tactical/Operator Belt (Kydex Reinforced)

  13. #73
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Beachbumcook View Post
    Marriage Licenses = All states recognizes other states licenses
    You sure about that one?
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

  14. #74
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,074
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGreatGonzo View Post
    You sure about that one?
    Gonzo
    It is not licenses that are recognized, it is marriages which are recognized. Now some states have an interesting view of what constitutes a marriage, but that issue aside, yes.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Array TheGreatGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    It is not licenses that are recognized, it is marriages which are recognized. Now some states have an interesting view of what constitutes a marriage, but that issue aside, yes.
    Ok, got it. I was under the impression that when some states started granting licenses to wed for non-traditional couples that it was held that other states would not have to recognize such licenses. And I'm fairly certain that other states would not have to, for legal purposes, recoginze such marriages. But I never really did much research into it.

    I know that licenses to practice law and medicine are not recognized from state to state. You have to be licensed in individual states and different states have different requirements.
    Thanks,
    Gonzo
    "Skin that smokewagon!".

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2011 ccw reciprocity
,

ccw reciprocity bill

,
concealed carry reciprocity bill
,

iowa ccw laws

,
national carry bill
,
national ccw bill
,
national ccw reciprocity bill
,
national ccw reciprocity bill 2011
,
national reciprocity bill
,

oregon ccw reciprocity

,

oregon ccw reciprocity 2011

,
oregon ccw reciprocity bill
,

oregon concealed carry reciprocity bill

,

oregon cwp reciprocity

,

oregon reciprocity bill

Click on a term to search for related topics.