Which state has the least intrusive requriements for non-resident CCL?


PDA






henschman
February 7, 2011, 05:50 PM
Hello,

you could say I am in the market for a concealed carry permit.

Here's the deal: I am strongly against the whole notion of asking permission to exercise a natural right. However, I am considering submitting to the tyranny of getting a concealed carry license just to make my life a little easier and care-free. I have no problem with igonring laws that violate my liberty if I believe the benefit to be worth the risk, but unfortunately my profession (attorney) is highly regulated by the state, and even a misdemeanor concealed weapon conviction could potentially be a problem for me.

I could get a license through my home state of Oklahoma, but I really detest some of the requirements, especially the requirement that I be fingerprinted. Having to ask permission to exercise the right is bad enough, but being treated like a criminal just for wanting to protect myself and my loved ones is outrageous. Also, the fees are somewhat high, and it takes quite a while for the license to actually be issued.

So anyway, I am looking for the state that offers a non-resident permit with the least-intrusive requirements. Please post which state or states you believe holds this title.

I could check every state's law one by one, but I thought you guys might be able to save me some trouble... if you give me several ideas, I can look them up and decide which I want to go with.

Thanks in advance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which state has the least intrusive requriements for non-resident CCL?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam1911
February 7, 2011, 06:01 PM
PA's non-resident license is pretty easy to get, IIRC, but they do require you to hold a permit from your own state first, so that's out.

One thing you'll find is that the more "intrusive" a state's permitting process, generally, the more other states recognize that permit. UT and FL are recognized by the most states, but they require fingerprinting and a training class.

It is a little odd to seek out a license or permit based entirely on the permitting process, rather than, say, which states recognize that permit. Most folks look first to which states they need to be able to carry a gun in, regularly, and get whatever permits meet that goal.

Are you just looking to have A carry permit, and want the easiest one you can get? Or do you want one that will let you carry in OK? (Will OK allow an OK resident to carry on a non-res permit from some other state? Most states don't.)

Shadow 7D
February 7, 2011, 06:17 PM
Arizona, Vermont and Alaska, allow CC with out paper with their states...

That being said, as far as I know, every state requires you to be finger printed for the CCL, as part of the background check. And if one does issue with out such a 'extensive' back ground, you most likely won't be able to use it, as it won't be recognized in most other states, most states refuse to recognize a license that is less strict than their own requirements, I believe that is part of the reason WA had to revamp their process.

archigos
February 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
PA did not require that I be finger printed.

LemmyCaution
February 7, 2011, 06:21 PM
Arizona, Vermont and Alaska, allow CC with out paper with their states...

Yes, but VT has reciprocity with exactly zero states, since we don't require, nor do we offer a permit.

Sam1911
February 7, 2011, 06:24 PM
every state requires you to be finger printed for the CCL, as part of the background checkNot so. There are quite a few that don't. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=498126)

Some are still recognized by many others. But, as you implied, the more restrictive a state's licensing procedures, the less likely it is to recognize permits from less restrictive states. PA, for example, does not require fingerprints, but is only recognized in ~26 states, whereas UT is recognized in more like ~34.

Another issue is whether or not a state has a verification system whereby an LEO in X state can call up at 2:00 am to check the validity of someone's permit from state Y.

Shadow 7D
February 7, 2011, 06:39 PM
Thanks for making that clear sam,
like I said, as far as I know
Personally I don't see the problem, as, unless you have something to hide....
but if you ever use your CCW, they are going on file anyways, and I'm a veteran, so I'm sure mine are already in the Fed database...

harmon rabb
February 7, 2011, 09:10 PM
Didn't you have to get printed to be admitted to your state bar? I'm a florida attorney and I had to be printed for admittance to the florida bar.

henschman
February 7, 2011, 09:12 PM
Actually I do have something to hide -- it's called my privacy.

Thanks for posting the link to that other thread, Sam. That was very helpful. In that thread, there was a list of states that do not require fingerprinting. I just went down the list and checked what the requirements are for a non-resident permit.

Maine is looking pretty good... you can apply by mail for a non-resident permit for $60. They do not require fingerprints, though the form does have you agree that you will provide them in the event that it becomes necessary to verify your identity. It doesn't ask for your SSN or anything, which is nice. I just downloaded the application from here http://www.maine.gov/dps/msp/licenses/weapons_permits.html and filled it out. Pretty straightforward.

Maine requires you to take a handgun safety course within the past 5 years that is recognized either by the issuing authority, or by the state in which it was taken. The law states that a completion certificate is satisfactory proof of this. I found a free online handgun safety course from the State of Maryland that only takes about 30 minutes and issues you a certificate when you're done: http://www.mdgunsafety.com/ It ought to fit the bill. I am taking it now, and it is really easy stuff.

Man, this is a lot easier than getting an Oklahoma concealed carry license. I can do it all sitting here at my computer! For an Oklahoma CCL, you have to go to a CLEET-certified course that costs $60 and takes a whole Saturday, and involves a written test and live firing. Then you have to go to the Sheriff's office and get printed and photographed (which costs $25). Then you have to fill out an application and pay the state $100, and then in 6 months if you're lucky, they will send you a letter saying you can go pick up your license. To hell with all that -- my money is going to a slightly more free state.

The nice thing is that Oklahoma recognizes all other states' concealed carry licenses, even those with less oppressive requirements (including ME, according to handgunlaw.us). They also do not have any law requring Oklahoma residents to get an Oklahoma license in order to carry -- another state's license will do just fine.

Well, I won't say I'm happy to have to be getting permission from any government to exercise my liberty, but I have to say that this is a lot easier than I thought it would be. I don't know why all Okies don't do it this way.

Oklahoma, you can take your license and fingerprints and SHOVE IT!!! :D

Shadow 7D
February 7, 2011, 09:37 PM
Just remember that if you every get put in the back of the patrol in handcuff while the 'verify' your CCL...

billybob44
February 7, 2011, 09:57 PM
It's not as easy as the OP's choice, but here in Indiana, I have a LIFETIME License To Carry Handgun permit. Other than the no permit required states I think this comes in a close second..Bill.:neener:

NavyLCDR
February 7, 2011, 09:59 PM
henschman,

Can I ask how you plan to get around the 1000' Gun Free School Zone law which is 18 USC 922 (q)? Or is that going to be one of those pesky, "I have no problem with igonring laws that violate my liberty if I believe the benefit to be worth the risk"?

Note the ATF's position:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

The law clearly provides that in order to qualify as an
exception to the general prohibitions of the Gun-Free
School Zones Act, the license must be issued by the State
in which the school zone is located or a political
subdivision of that State. A concealed weapons license or
permit from any other State would not satisfy the criteria
set forth in the law.

wildbilll
February 7, 2011, 10:09 PM
Could probably deal with the latest version of the GFSZ act the same way everyone does that carries a gun without a permit in OK.

dogrunner
February 7, 2011, 10:11 PM
I dunno what your hang up with the print issue is, after all you DID have to submit a set to secure bar admission I'm sure. Regardless, the privacy matter is pretty much a non issue in several must issue jurisdictions. Florida for example has forbidden the release of ccw info for other than LE purposes........something that happened after some odious 'freedom of the press' types abused the hell out of their prerogatives.

Theoretically and philosophically I agree with you.........practically, you are right........get that unconstitutional piece of gov't mandated 'stay out of jail' card. Still, I think you are kinda short changing yourself, especially relative to the reciprocity issue with minimally recognized state such as Maine.......your call tho.

Just as an aside, relative to the privacy issue, I well recall being mandated by my city's commission to conduct background checks on prospective non-LE hires. Couldn't by law use NCIC but kinda by accident fell into a background information program that utterly amazed me..........I swear I could tell you who your third ex wife's next door neighbor was........turned out that program was a really useful tool that exceeded the general capabilities of NCIC in several instances............bottom line is that ANYONE who labors under the impression that he/she can 'control' their privacy by avoiding ministerial inanities such as printing for a licensure matter is fooling themselves........badly!

NavyLCDR
February 7, 2011, 10:12 PM
Could probably deal with the latest version of the GFSZ act the same way everyone does that carries a gun without a permit in OK.

Surely you must mean to stop before coming within 1000' of a school, unload the gun and lock it in a case? :neener:

I swear I could tell you who your third ex wife's next door neighbor was.

Can I send you a name and SSN in PM?!? I'd like to have that information! :D

henschman
February 7, 2011, 10:18 PM
What, you mean that law that was ruled unconstitutional back in 1995, over the government's commerce clause argument, and then reenacted the next year with token changes that basically quoted the government's argument that was rejected in the earlier SC case?

I guess if I ever get pulled over by a fed within 1000 feet of a school, I'll start worrying about that one. I seriously doubt it would be upheld in Court anyway.

It absolutely falls into the category of laws I will cheerfully break. The risk of getting caught for that one is not high enough for me to worry about.

NavyLCDR
February 7, 2011, 10:22 PM
If you are a lawyer, then why don't you file a lawsuit to get it repealed? You could dispute the law based upon the fact that it nullifies the full faith and credit clause of the US Constitution. Seems like a more high road approach then simply admitting you are going to commit a federal felony, probably several times every day.

henschman
February 7, 2011, 10:30 PM
Yes, my government masters did indeed require my prints to give me permission to practice my chosen profession. I was under duress there... I didn't really have an alternative, if I wanted to work in the area that I chose. Plus it is a lot harder to get away with practicing law without a license than it is to carry a handgun without a license.

Not wanting to get a CCL that requires this is more about the principle of the thing. If there is a way around it, I will take it.

henschman
February 7, 2011, 10:36 PM
I would have dubious standing unless I was actually charged under the law... I would have to claim that the law harms me by requiring me to take convoluted paths to my destinations, makes some desitnations unreachable, and requires me to look up every school zone in my planned path. It would be easy for a court to dodge this issue by denying standing. For a criminal statute, you generally have to be charged under it in order to have standing to challenge its constitutionality. It would be a lot of trouble and expense for a doubtful outcome.

Now if someone actually was charged with that crime, I would represent them pro bono.

billybob44
February 7, 2011, 10:42 PM
What, you mean that law that was ruled unconstitutional back in 1995, over the government's commerce clause argument, and then reenacted the next year with token changes that basically quoted the government's argument that was rejected in the earlier SC case?

I guess if I ever get pulled over by a fed within 1000 feet of a school, I'll start worrying about that one. I seriously doubt it would be upheld in Court anyway.

It absolutely falls into the category of laws I will cheerfully break. The risk of getting caught for that one is not high enough for me to worry about.
No problem at all. You-in your field- should know more than most, the firearms possession charge(without a permit) is the first one to be thrown out on a plea deal...???
Why make these laws, just to throw them out in order to get an easier guilty verdict??

NavyLCDR
February 7, 2011, 10:51 PM
Now if someone actually was charged with that crime, I would represent them pro bono.

Here's your chance:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/politics/7837-concealed-carry-reciprocity-currently-banned-under-federal-law-important-20.html#post180907

Shadow 7D
February 7, 2011, 11:39 PM
Hey Navy, I though the SC sent that one back, and found that the 'federal' goverment could enforce it on--- Federal Facilities, as it DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.....

SO, out out side of DC, Military bases etc. it has no force, unless the state has enacted a similar law.

JellyJar
February 8, 2011, 12:13 AM
Get over it and just get an Ok license. I have a Texas CHL and I had to be finger printed and such. Just be glad you don't live in some place like Illinois.

NavyLCDR
February 8, 2011, 12:20 AM
Hey Navy, I though the SC sent that one back, and found that the 'federal' goverment could enforce it on--- Federal Facilities, as it DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE.....

SO, out out side of DC, Military bases etc. it has no force, unless the state has enacted a similar law.

The US Supreme Court declared the GFSZA of 1990 to be unconstitutional. In 1995 Congress passed a new GFSZA (the current one) that added a requirement for the prosecution to prove that the gun in question "has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce", thus bringing it (unconstitutionally, in my opinion) under the commerce clause again. The 1995 GFSZA has not been voided by the US Supreme Court, yet.

All the prosecution has to prove is that the gun has ever affected interstate commerce. This could be anything from the ore used to forge the steel in the gun came from out of state.

Heck in Wickard V. Filburn the US Supreme Court upheld a decision that said that a completely local item (in this case, wheat) could be regulated by the Federal Government under the commerce clause if that item even only caused competition in interstate commerce!

nalioth
February 8, 2011, 12:45 AM
It's not as easy as the OP's choice, but here in Indiana, I have a LIFETIME License To Carry Handgun permit.If I recall, IN did away with the lifetime licenses after they tried it for a few years.

If you have one, great. I don't think any new ones are being issued, though.

wildbilll
February 8, 2011, 12:49 AM
I thought about it and I am gonna post on this one again.
I think too much is being read into/assumed to be true when reading the law.
Here is the letter link again:
http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf

Since the feds have not specified in the US code what the "background check" must consist of, it is therefore reasonable that it must consist of the minimum information that any state in the Union uses, otherwise it's a violation of equal protection. Example: PA will issue resident and non-resident with very little information when compared to other states.
If it's good enough in PA, it's has to be good enough in MO as far as the US code is concerned.

The Feds cannot control the manner of how the state conducts the check, it isn't specified in the code. Nothing says they can't contract it out. Some probably do!
If state "A" enters into an agreement to allow as valid a permit from state "B", then there has been a "background check" that is deemed acceptable to state "A" where the permit will be considered as valid.

I would like to see a reference to an actual case (post Lopez) with someone's name on it, as I think the emperor has no clothes.

Nalioth:

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/indiana.pdf

Looks like for personal protection it's still a lifetime permit.

swinokur
February 8, 2011, 08:04 AM
Because non residents are getting non resident UT permits to avoid licensing in their home state, the UT legislature is on the verge of amending their concealed carry permit law to require any person applying for a UT non resident to be in a state that recognizes UT's permit AND holds a permit issued by their home state. May issue or states that prohibit carry are exempted. So shopping for the "best" permit if you don't have a home state license is about to be a thing of the past. FL already requires permit holders to have a license to be from their home state and have reciprocity to carry in FL. They do not recognize non resident permits at all. Therefore if you have a UT permit and live in OK, you cannot carry in FL without a FL permit.

UT is doing this precisely because people are getting UT permits to circumvent their home state carry laws. Several states have dropped UT recognition ie NM and NV because their residents were carrying in their home state on a UT permit. Instead of waiting on 50 states to require home state licensing for their residences, UT is changing their law.

Another reason given was some CCW instructors in NM complained to their legislators that UT instructors in NM were actively seeking students for UT CCW class, taking money out of their pockets

Bottom line is UT permit won't be available to non residents without those people having home state licenses as well..

highlander 5
February 8, 2011, 09:16 AM
Henchsman you may be in for a bit of a surprise on your wanting privacy. IIRC Me has an affivdvid that you must sign to check on your mental health status. I had plans on getting a Me but I couldn't get a hadgun safety course certificate because of my work schedule and I recall seeing that form included in the permit package.

LemmyCaution
February 8, 2011, 09:20 AM
Because non residents are getting non resident UT permits to avoid licensing in their home state, the UT legislature is on the verge of amending their concealed carry permit law to require any person applying for a UT non resident to be in a state that recognizes UT's permit AND holds a permit issued by their home state.

So a VT resident would not be able to get a UT non-resident permit?

We don't recognize UT's permits, because no one needs a permit to carry in VT, not even nonresidents.

We don't issue permits to our own residents, because they don't need the state's permission to carry.

As such, we fail both the criteria listed above.

NavyLCDR
February 8, 2011, 09:22 AM
If it's good enough in PA, it's has to be good enough in MO as far as the US code is concerned.

You are failing to take into account two things: the Federal statute requires the licensing to be done BY the state the school zone is located in, and it requires the background check to be done by the same state.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

If you have a PA permit and you are carrying in MO - you still have not been licensed BY Missouri. Your license is merely recognized in MO, but MO did not license you, PA did.

And the background check must be performed by THE state. It does not say ANY state or A state, it says THE state. So which state would that be since THE state means one and only one state? THE state is THE state which issued the license, which has to be THE state the school zone is located in.

The actual statute is 18 USC 922 (q) if you want to read it yourself.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000922----000-.html

swinokur
February 8, 2011, 09:29 AM
So a VT resident would not be able to get a UT non-resident permit?

We don't recognize UT's permits, because no one needs a permit to carry in VT, not even nonresidents.

We don't issue permits to our own residents, because they don't need the state's permission to carry.

As such, we fail both the criteria listed above.

I know there is a provision for may issue states. You would have to read the proposed legislation to see how it handles Constitutional carry states. I know AZ and AK can issue a permit if you need one. No idea about VT

I am now told the bill has been sent back to committee because of fiscal impact issues. I think it's a safe bet it will pass at some point. UT does not want to jeopardize their large state reciprocity list by having states that recognize the UT permit drop them because of this "loophole" They have already lost 2 states because of this.

Ole Coot
February 8, 2011, 09:48 AM
Don't see the problem. If you were in the military, had a civilian job with needed security clearance, worked for the government your prints are on file. Mine were first taken about 50yrs ago and many times since in different occupations. I did not have them taken in the early '90s when I moved here and got my CCL for this state. Depends on what you did or have done, mine are not public record and the judge had them sealed but if you have lived, worked, served you probably have prints on file somewhere.

wildbilll
February 8, 2011, 12:06 PM
The Attorney General (who is the chief law enforcement officer) of the state is the one who entered into an agreement with another state, where they have made an official determination (verification) that the laws of the other state do in fact ensure that the person is qualified to receive such license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

The reciprocity or recognition is the granting of license by that state to a person to carry the weapon in that state, it is identical in all respects. There are no differences in the eyes of the state.

I said it before, here it is again - Where is the named case, post LOPEZ, that covers this situation? I looked around and I do not see it talked about. I believe the feds know that these reciprocity laws make the GFSZ act too murky and will not prosecute if the accused has a permit considered valid in that state.
It's easier to focus on the clear violations, where there is no permit.

NavyLCDR
February 8, 2011, 12:32 PM
The Attorney General (who is the chief law enforcement officer) of the state is the one who entered into an agreement with another state, where they have made an official determination (verification) that the laws of the other state do in fact ensure that the person is qualified to receive such license.

The OP is from Oklahoma. So, unless you are talking about a state other than Oklahoma, the highlighted portion of your statement above is incorrect. In Oklahoma, the Attorney General has got nothing to do with it and there is no verification that the other states' licenses meet any requirements.

http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os21.rtf

21-1290.26. Reciprocal agreement authority.
RECIPROCAL AGREEMENT AUTHORITY
The State of Oklahoma hereby recognizes any valid concealed carry weapons permit or license issued by another state. Any person entering this state in possession of a firearm authorized for concealed carry upon the authority and license of another state is authorized to continue to carry a concealed firearm and license in this state; provided the license from the other state remains valid.

henschman
February 8, 2011, 12:41 PM
The Federal Gun Free Schools Act, as reenacted, basically just added some language to the law that rehashed the argument that the feds made in Lopez... the same argument that the SC rejected. In that case, the feds argued that the gun involved had moved in interstate commerce, and that the aggregate effect of guns in school zones would effect interstate commerce because kids would not get good education, and would have lower paying jobs, etc... basically the feds made any argument they could to connect the possession of guns in a school zone with interstate commerce, and the Supreme Court didn't buy any of it. They said the connection to interstate commerce was too remote.

The new GFSZA just says that the gun must move in interstate commerce or must affect interstate commerce. Since this rationale for the law has already been rejected, it is widely believed that if the feds attempted to enforce this law and it's constitutionality was challenged, it would be ruled unconstitutional again.

NavyLT, thanks for the link to that thread... I will keep an eye out for more info on that case the gentleman referred to where someone is being prosecuted solely for a violation of the GFSZA. I didn't think the feds would ever prosecute anybody solely under that law... at least not until after one of the conservative justices is replaced by a liberal. I figured it would be used just for overcharging in order to get more favorable plea bargains, if anything. If I figure out what case that is, I may just ask the defendant's attorney if I could be of assistance with research or anything. If the guy who made that post got the info from the NRA, it probably means that the NRA is representing the defendant, and in that case I'm sure he already has a competent defense team... but I can always ask.

LemmyCaution, yes, yes, we are all jealous of your state's lack of prohibition on the carry of firearms... you don't have to rub it in. I don't know about everyone else, but I am also jealous of your lack of nudity laws. I bet there are naked babes everywhere up there. Also, it would be nice not to have to worry about an "accidental exposure" or "printing" when I'm wearing those sexy little short cutoff jeans I love to sport around town...

"this is my pistol, this is my gun, this one's for killing, this one's for fun." :D:D:D

wildbilll
February 8, 2011, 01:49 PM
I wish I could figure out why I can't quote someone like I can on other sites.

NavyLT:
"provided the license from the other state remains valid"There it is, the state has ensured that the person is qualified to receive such license.

I think there is a belief that "License" means a piece of paper was issued by the state, but that isn't what the US code says. It merely states that a license is to be issued by the state, and the state has, in fact, issued a blanket license to all of those other license holders, since the state has determined that the other state's background check is sufficient.

We can go around and around but the tilt of the legal argument must lean toward the accused. In light of Heller and McDonald it is so much more so today.

One more reason for the feds to make sure they have a solid case in OK before they try to prosecute:

"D. When a person’s rights pursuant to the protection of the preemption provisions of this section have been violated, the person shall have the right to bring a civil action against the persons, municipality, and political subdivision jointly and severally for injunctive relief or monetary damages or both."

If you enjoyed reading about "Which state has the least intrusive requriements for non-resident CCL?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!