Would federal Concealed Carry Reciprocity eliminate "shall issue" permits?

[Pb]

Ok, if the fed concealed carry reciprocity passes, could a person in a shall issue state like CA or NY be able to carry in their own state with a non-resident permit from, say, FL, or another state that issues non-resident permits?

[Fly320s]

If it is implemented like driver's licenses, then yes.

[Scout26]

You mean "May-Issue" states.

[RoadKingLarry]

You mean "May-Issue" states.

You mean Might (not likely)-Issue states.

[Hawkmoon]

If it is implemented like driver's licenses, then yes.

Or not. It's against the law (I think) to get a driver's license from more than one state, or from a state other than your state of residence.

The devil is always in the details. Much would depend on how any prospective federal reciprocity law is worded.

[Fly320s]

Or not. It's against the law (I think) to get a driver's license from more than one state, or from a state other than your state of residence.

The devil is always in the details. Much would depend on how any prospective federal reciprocity law is worded.

Ah.  Sticky wicket. 

Let us hope that there is no federal law other than, "Any concealed carry permit issued in one state is valid in all states."

[lupinus]

Ah.  Sticky wicket. 

Let us hope that there is no federal law other than, "Any concealed carry permit issued in one state is valid in all states."

Agreed.

I wouldn't mind something that allows for certain protections. Such as if your firearm/ammunition is legal in your home state it is legal in whatever state you happen to be carrying in. All states need to make a permit available to all qualifying citizens (in effect forcing them to move to shall issue), etc.

There should be no federal standards on CC, other than recognizing each other's permits and maybe a few basic protections.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pb]

Yeah, you are right, I should have said "may issue" not "shall issue."

If this does allow it, then places like CA and NY would be effectively shall issue.

[MikeB]

Yeah, you are right, I should have said "may issue" not "shall issue."

If this does allow it, then places like CA and NY would be effectively shall issue.

No. The bill would requires other states to recognize your home state license/permit. It would not require them to recognize a license/permit that you acquired from another state. Generally a drivers license is required to be from your state of residence, basically the same thing. Yes there are some residency exceptions for military or people who maintain multiple residences. States have differing ways of deciding that which might work for this too, or may not. It won't allow you to be a resident of CA and carry on a UT license though for example. Assuming UT even gives licenses to out of state people who don't have a home state one; I know some states do and others don't.

[Ben]

No. The bill would requires other states to recognize your home state license/permit. It would not require them to recognize a license/permit that you acquired from another state. Generally a drivers license is required to be from your state of residence, basically the same thing. Yes there are some residency exceptions for military or people who maintain multiple residences. States have differing ways of deciding that which might work for this too, or may not. It won't allow you to be a resident of CA and carry on a UT license though for example. Assuming UT even gives licenses to out of state people who don't have a home state one; I know some states do and others don't.

UT does give to anyone. As a CA resident, I'm an expert on non-resident permits. :)

Currently UT, AZ, and FL are about the top three that will issue to anyone who meets their criteria, and also allow the most reciprocity across the US.

[T.O.M.]

This is what I see as the biggest issue with some type of federal law regarding CCW...what happens in states like CA and NY?  It would end up as either a civil action appealed all the way to SCOTUS as an issue of state's rights vs. federal law.  And, it would end up focusing on the authority of the feds to implement any type of legislation under the Constitution.  I know, the feds justify everything under Commerce Clause, but that seems like a real stretch here compared to things like driver licenses.  If not a civil action by CA or NY seeking declaratory judgment, it would be a criminal case where some poor CCW carrier would end up arrested in NYC, and spend a couple of years in prison while the case ran up through the state courts before it could be appealed to SCOTUS.

[Pb]

This is what I see as the biggest issue with some type of federal law regarding CCW...what happens in states like CA and NY?  It would end up as either a civil action appealed all the way to SCOTUS as an issue of state's rights vs. federal law.  And, it would end up focusing on the authority of the feds to implement any type of legislation under the Constitution.  I know, the feds justify everything under Commerce Clause, but that seems like a real stretch here compared to things like driver licenses.  If not a civil action by CA or NY seeking declaratory judgment, it would be a criminal case where some poor CCW carrier would end up arrested in NYC, and spend a couple of years in prison while the case ran up through the state courts before it could be appealed to SCOTUS.

It could be justified under the 14th Amendment, with the Fed gov ensuring the second amendment rights of citizens.

[Hawkmoon]

No. The bill would requires other states to recognize your home state license/permit. It would not require them to recognize a license/permit that you acquired from another state.

And a big "No" to your "No." The bill hasn't even been written yet, so how can you know what it will or won't say? It might say that other states are required to honor your home state permit, or it might say that other states are required to honor any permit you have. If the former ... what happens to Vermonters?

[Hawkmoon]

I know, the feds justify everything under Commerce Clause, but that seems like a real stretch here compared to things like driver licenses.

How is it a stretch to cover bearing arms under the Commerce Clause? That's exactly how they did the LEOSA. And let's face it -- it's just about impossible for anyone to buy and carry a gun and ammunition in a state other than his/her home state without interstate commerce being involved. The gun almost certainly went across state lines before it was even sold at retail, ditto for the ammunition, and then the owner crossed state lines to be visiting in another state. If he/she is spending money in that state ==> interstate commerce.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

[MikeB]

And a big "No" to your "No." The bill hasn't even been written yet, so how can you know what it will or won't say? It might say that other states are required to honor your home state permit, or it might say that other states are required to honor any permit you have. If the former ... what happens to Vermonters?

The bill has been written several times and came within one or two senate votes of passing about 10 years ago. Every version has been as I described. Granted the next one could be different, but I wouldn't bet on it. It's one thing to tell the states they have to accept a home state permit from people visiting and another to say their own residents can go get a permit from another state.

[MechAg94]

No. The bill would requires other states to recognize your home state license/permit. It would not require them to recognize a license/permit that you acquired from another state. Generally a drivers license is required to be from your state of residence, basically the same thing. Yes there are some residency exceptions for military or people who maintain multiple residences. States have differing ways of deciding that which might work for this too, or may not. It won't allow you to be a resident of CA and carry on a UT license though for example. Assuming UT even gives licenses to out of state people who don't have a home state one; I know some states do and others don't.

I am pretty sure most states do not allow a resident to use an out of state license.  To me, this falls within state's rights and should stay that way.  I am okay with forcing states to do shall issue permits, but forcing them to accept out of state permits for residents seems a bit too far.  It just seems that ought to be a battle fought in California or New Jersey, not D.C.  After all, there are lots of other state rules that visiting gun owners will have to deal with anyway.  The New Jersey ammo restrictions come to mind as well as the different ways states treat self defense in general. 

Maybe I am thinking about doing this one step at a time.  I am not sure what they will be able to get through Congress. 

I still want the Hearing Protection Act first.   

[MillCreek]

^^^I did notice that when I renewed my Utah permit a few months back, they now required me to also have a Washington permit.  Since I have had a Washington permit since 1981, I scanned a copy and emailed it with my Utah renewal application, and all was copacetic.

[Ben]

^^^I did notice that when I renewed my Utah permit a few months back, they now required me to also have a Washington permit.  Since I have had a Washington permit since 1981, I scanned a copy and emailed it with my Utah renewal application, and all was copacetic.

Interesting. I did my Utah renewal a few months ago and there is no such requirement for CA. I wonder if it's just for states with joint reciprocity? Anyway, more reason for way less, and easy to understand regs/laws.

[wmenorr67]

Trumps' first EO should read,

As of this date, 20 Jan 17, the 2nd Amendment allows for any person who can legally own firearms, can carry firearms throughout the United States of America.

[freakazoid]

I wouldn't mind something that allows for certain protections. Such as if your firearm/ammunition is legal in your home state it is legal in whatever state you happen to be carrying in. All states need to make a permit available to all qualifying citizens (in effect forcing them to move to shall issue), etc.

This would be great for those I the military. When I was stationed in CA I wasn't supposed to have certain guns with certain features, or mags over 10 rounds. Not supposed too...

[Fly320s]

Trumps' first EO should read,

As of this date, 20 Jan 17, the 2nd Amendment allows for any person who can legally own firearms, can carry firearms throughout the United States of America.

Sounds good except that POTUS shouldn't be creating laws.

[T.O.M.]

Sounds good except that POTUS shouldn't be creating laws.

Yeah, we've complained for years about how much we hated when Obama did this.  Don't want our guy to follow a bad example, even for the right reasons.

[wmenorr67]

Sounds good except that POTUS shouldn't be creating laws.

Yeah, we've complained for years about how much we hated when Obama did this.  Don't want our guy to follow a bad example, even for the right reasons.

Not sure he would be creating one, just re-emphasizing the one that already exists.

[brimic]

Yeah, we've complained for years about how much we hated when Obama did this.  Don't want our guy to follow a bad example, even for the right reasons.

He should put the idea out there just to troll the media and the left...
Might as well float the idea of cracking down on medicinal marijuana where states down align with federal laws- cause a panic that causes hoarding, and shortages... maybe have the FDA or NIH (or both) buy up large amounts of 'legal' pot for 'training purposes.' 


Then there's abortion....

[Hawkmoon]

Or just have the federal government legalize marijuana and leave it up to the states if they want to be party poopers.

For the record, I don't smoke or otherwise use pot, or any other unlawful chemical substance, never have, and never will. I've never even tried MJ, not even without inhaling. I personally think it's evil and should be avoided like the plague, but I don't think the federal government needs to decide for us that nobody can use it.