Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 95 Posts

·
Premium Member
Lenexa, KS (Kansas City Metro)
Joined
·
865 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I thought I understood what national reciprocity meant until a friend asked me a question today at the range.

If a national reciprocity law is passed by Congress can you conceal carry in all states without a permit from the state you live in (or) do you still need a state permit?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,956 Posts
All it means is all states must recognise your permit. you still have to abide by what ever state laws you are in. Much like your drivers license. So yes you still need a permit for all other states to honour. I am not sure if it has to be from your "Home "state or not. DR
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
795 Posts
I thought I understood what national reciprocity meant until a friend asked me a question today at the range.

If a national reciprocity law is passed by Congress can you conceal carry in all states without a permit from the state you live in (or) do you still need a state permit?
Interesting question, Rhode Island, and Alaska don't have permits so would all states have to honor "no permit" carry. I would think not. But that's just me thinking, and me thinking has gotten me in trouble.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,885 Posts
Interesting question, Rhode Island, and Alaska don't have permits so would all states have to honor "no permit" carry. I would think not. But that's just me thinking, and me thinking has gotten me in trouble.
Rhode Island is very much a permit-required state. Maybe you were thinking of Vermont? I know, it's tough to keep track of all those itty-bitty New England states!

Back to the OP's question: I don't think there is any one definitive national reciprocity on the table at this time, so there's no way to know what might be required or not.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,181 Posts
Just a guess....if you met the requirements for concealed carry in your home state, then other states would be required to allow you to conceal according to the statute in the state you were visiting at the time.

The devil as always is in the details. Since NJ allows no one except the elite few to actually carry a loaded gun, you would still not be able to carry there. And naturally some federal database would be needed so states could share info.

Pure constitutional carry would be more useful in my opinion. No need for a permit at all, in any state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
233 Posts
Even with National Reciprocity you could still run afoul of California's maze of onerous gun laws (e.g., ban on all magazines > 10 rounds, ...), but would be better than nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,827 Posts
Even with National Reciprocity you could still run afoul of California's maze of onerous gun laws (e.g., ban on all magazines > 10 rounds, ...), but would be better than nothing.
Good point. Most states do not have an arbitrary magazine capacity limit so carrying in the states that do have this onerous law could present a problem. Does New York still have its 7-round maximum capacity law? Would we be required to own and use magazines that honor laws such as this?

FWIW, I am not at all in favor of any national reciprocity law that is a product of the federal government. I smell nothing more than a sinister stew with them in the mix.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,031 Posts
Interesting question, Rhode Island, and Alaska don't have permits so would all states have to honor "no permit" carry. I would think not. But that's just me thinking, and me thinking has gotten me in trouble.
This is exactly why I am not for national reciprocity yet. I feel that to make it work, as currently most states still require a purchased license, the need would be to make those states that do not require concealed license/permits to have them. That would be a change for the worse.

For me to support it, it would have to mean that NO state requires a license.
 

·
Premium Member
Lenexa, KS (Kansas City Metro)
Joined
·
865 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. I too am not in favor of national reciprocity as I don't want the federal government involved to screw it up and become more involved than they need to be. I think the states should work together as they are doing now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Interesting question, Rhode Island, and Alaska don't have permits so would all states have to honor "no permit" carry. I would think not. But that's just me thinking, and me thinking has gotten me in trouble.
Last I heard you do not need a permit to conceal in Alaska, but they still issue permits in case you want to travel to other states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
808 Posts
Rhode Island is very much a permit-required state. Maybe you were thinking of Vermont? I know, it's tough to keep track of all those itty-bitty New England states!

Back to the OP's question: I don't think there is any one definitive national reciprocity on the table at this time, so there's no way to know what might be required or not.
‘‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017’’.

http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/u...Carry-Reciprocity-Act-of-2017-Rep.-Hudson.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
This is exactly why I am not for national reciprocity yet. I feel that to make it work, as currently most states still require a purchased license, the need would be to make those states that do not require concealed license/permits to have them. That would be a change for the worse.

For me to support it, it would have to mean that NO state requires a license.
Most state do not require a license to purchase, where do you get your information??
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,119 Posts
Dems will be unified against it as will some Republicans in Congress. A good chunk of Republican voters and gun owners will be against it as well. State legistrators wont like the Federal Goverment overruling their local laws and reprocity laws. I don't see this going anywhere in all reality, and I'm glad that its not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,786 Posts
Dems will be unified against it as will some Republicans in Congress. A good chunk of Republican voters and gun owners will be against it as well. State legistrators wont like the Federal Goverment overruling their local laws and reprocity laws. I don't see this going anywhere in all reality, and I'm glad that its not.
Laws which contradict the 2nd Amendment need overturned at the federal level... the sooner, the better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
321 Posts
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. I too am not in favor of national reciprocity as I don't want the federal government involved to screw it up and become more involved than they need to be. I think the states should work together as they are doing now.


What about those states that DON'T want to work together or are not currently working together (Mass/Ca for example). With the current situation, states can add all kinds of insanely unreasonable infringement/restrictions/laws they want with no penalty.

In order for the National Reciprocity to work the bill has to be worded to cover many things.

It cannot say we still have to abide by the other states laws. If it does then the bill is worthless (IMO).. It must say something to the effect of:

"Any state that currently has any laws and/or restrictions that infringe on their residents right to keep and bear arms, are in direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution and are now hereby rescinded. The Second Amendment has no allowance for infringement as it so clearly states"

So everyone has to have a permit from their state (Use drivers license for true constitutional carry states) with no restrictions or laws enforcing restrictions. If that basic paragraph is not in that bill then we are right where we are now..

I don't see how it iwill work if states are allowed to keep their current laws/restrictions that go in direct violation of the 2A. There are so many states that have so many different laws.. how in the heck are we supposed to keep track of that .If you are traveling to just a neighboring state not too much of an issue but if you travel across the country or from Maine to Fla then again how will that be managed.

I thought the purpose of this bill was so we could "Freely" travel with fiream at my side or did I misinterperet the purpose of the bill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gatorbait51

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
36,786 Posts
Thanks for everyone's thoughts. I too am not in favor of national reciprocity as I don't want the federal government involved to screw it up and become more involved than they need to be. I think the states should work together as they are doing now.
One out of three Americans currently live in states and territories which do not recognize the 2A rights of citizens of other states, and in many cases, those of their own residents. That doesn't fit my impression of working together.
 
1 - 20 of 95 Posts
Top