National CCW reciprocity

If you live in a state were you dont need one and go to another state will your dl act as your ccw

If you live in a state were you dont need one and go to another state will your dl act as your ccw

Click to expand...

No it will not.
In fact, it may land you in jail depending on the state and the circumstances.

The background concern among the gun community folks is giving the Federal govenment authority over carrying guns. If Congress gets to make the laws concerning CCW what's to stop some future anti-gun majority from banning it alltogether? At least now we can move to a gun-friendly state.

Curator said:

The background concern among the gun community folks is giving the Federal govenment authority over carrying guns. If Congress gets to make the laws concerning CCW what's to stop some future anti-gun majority from banning it alltogether? At least now we can move to a gun-friendly state.

Click to expand...

^^ What's to stop them from doing it now? You're putting off progress due to fear. The brady bunch loves it.

I for one, do not like the fact that the fed has any say so in whether or not I carry, I would like it if the laws were abolished on any carry, and we went back to constitutional carry, and anyone who is legal to own ,could carry without any kind of permit. I know ,,the world is not perfect,, LOL.

Also, states you need a resident permit to carry in your state of residency.

It's not a looming future federal ban that is anyone's concern.

The concern is the predictable reaction from those less-than-free jurisdictions, and the federal standard that would be attached to national reciprocity.

Jurisdictions like Washington DC, New York City, and Illinois would conceivably challenge a standard-lacking national reciprocity law in court. They would under no circumstances honor a resident of Vermont to carry un-permitted within their state/district. So they would challenge the law, demanding some form of standard that they could stomach, and I can't imagine that they wouldn't move the line back in their favor.

This would mean that residents of Wyoming, Arizona, etc. would now have to go well beyond their current requirements if they are going to be given the privilege to carry.

These standards would be sold as 'reasonable'.

Where a resident of Arizona didn't previously have to pay money, take a course, qualify before a safety authority, they might have to, after several other states make a demand for it.

If there is regulating and taxing to do the Federal Government will do it. Leave it like it is and fight to fix that last handful of states.
If it was a full faith and credit issue we would be doing it already.

I read somewhere that the problems of the 4 states that don't require a permit could be rectified if folks in those states applied for an out of state permit somewhere else.They then would be covered.
What tees me off is that as far as I know the drivers license issue never had these problems.Why can't we just model the gun carry issue like the drivers license and not even involve the Federal Govt.?

So what?

If they do make a "federal standard" to travel across all states, you would have to meet that standard to travel places without current reciprocity.

For instance, I can get my VA permit which is recognised in Florida. All of a sudden HR822 is passed and my VA permit is now good at my summer home in NYS.

Yay!

Well Dinkleburg (the NYC Mayor) doesn't like it and somehow by the magic of lawmaking we get some "national standard" to be covered under the provisions of the HR822 law.

So what? That just means to go to NY i have to meet a standard higher than that VA offers, but still lower than that of NY offers. But here the kicker:

Due to Virginia's reciprocity wirth Florida, if I didn't want to travel to NY I wouldnt have to meet that standard.

And I'm back to where I started! Nothing lost, but if I felt like it, now I can actually carry in NYS without their silly laws.

Once the Feds get authority over something, it's only a matter of time before it is heavily regulated and taxed. Even though the Second Amendment tells them they have no power in this area, they have gotten SCOTUS to rule that using the commerce clause to override other provisions in the Constitution is constitutional.

The Federal response to ANY issue concerning the states is a "one-size-fits-all" mentality in which the solution doesn't work well for anyone. All one has to do is look at ANY social issue to see that - education, welfare, health care, etc. You can bet that any national CCW is going to be determined by those from NY, CA, IL, DC, etc. and the restrictions will be such that you won't be able to carry anywhere.
Do not let this camel's nose under the tent!

Do you really think that the final product will be like the rights the people in AZ, Ak, VT, WY enjoy or what those in NYS/NYC, MA, NJ, CA consider privileges?
The states that are prohibitive or may issue now are not going to embrace any of the rights that "cowboy" "wild west" states have. If you live in one of these states we will happily join you in fixing the problem or embrace you moving to Free America but the government that governs least governs the best.

X-Rap said:

Do you really think that the final product will be like the rights the people in AZ, Ak, VT, WY enjoy or what those in NYS/NYC, MA, NJ, CA consider privileges?
The states that are prohibitive or may issue now are not going to embrace any of the rights that "cowboy" "wild west" states have. If you live in one of these states we will happily join you in fixing the problem or embrace you moving to Free America but the government that governs least governs the best.

Click to expand...

But do you think a National Carry Reciprocity bill will result in laws like England?

Sorry, but the Federal government has had authority over firearms for quite some time.

Click to expand...

No, the Feds TOOK authority over them using the perversions of the commerce clause authorized by the Supreme Court. They then passed gun laws such as NFA and GCA 1968.

I don't know but I like things the way they are going with the states in charge.
A Utah permit will give you around 35 states and some others will add a few more. That is not perfect but considering what things looked like 20 yrs ago it is night and day.
I want the central gov. to assume a role closer to what it had in 1800 than it does today and strongly believe that the one size fits all view from DC is not the same one size fits all that 2A supporters and residents fly over country believe in.

So what? That just means to go to NY i have to meet a standard higher than...

Click to expand...

Dang. Freedom is for sale!! We so easily exchange our liberty for...

"Big deal! I have to register my firearms, pay monthly taxes, I can't buy more than one per year, I have to pass quarterly qualifications, I'm limited to the amount of ammo I can keep on hand, I have to submit to having my home searched every other year... so what? I get to own a handgun!!! Me's happy!!"

Someday, I swear it, those words may be posted here by someone who is serious.

The National CCW Reciprocity is only going to be valid in the states that CCW's are issued, there will not be a reciprocity for Illinois, NY, or DC because they are "No-Issue" communities. There will not be a "cookie-cutter" qualification that goes along with it according to the bill. It states that if you meet the requirements of your state of residence then your permit will be recognized in all other states that is an issue state, this includes people that already have CCWs. No need to apply for a new one or meet different standards just because 822 has passed. Now we all know that this is subject to change at a moments notice, im just letting you know what the bill said when i read it.

The Devil is in the details and reconciliations! In a government where most members don't even understand or read much ofthe legislation they vote I only wish it would be written as clear as you stated it.

Now we all know that this is subject to change at a moments notice, im just letting you know what the bill said when i read it.

Click to expand...

This is of course true.

My point is that 'we' took a few jurisdictions to court and challenged their ways, and those same locales would be expected to take 'us' to court on this one. IF it could ever pass, it MIGHT pass as written, but once it is in stone, those local governments should be expected to band together to implement something additional to the already passed legislation. It will be 'reasonable', and it will change the face of concealed carry for everyone. That will be their goal.

The only way to prevent them from forever requiring me to do something that I don't currently have to do, is to never give them the venue to bring the issue in the first place. This legislation gives them that chance.

CoRoMo said:

Dang. Freedom is for sale!! We so easily exchange our liberty for...

"Big deal! I have to register my firearms, pay monthly taxes, I can't buy more than one per year, I have to pass quarterly qualifications, I'm limited to the amount of ammo I can keep on hand, I have to submit to having my home searched every other year... so what? I get to own a handgun!!! Me's happy!!"

Someday, I swear it, those words may be posted here by someone who is serious.

Click to expand...

Doom & gloom eh?

I made the "so what" statement mean that I was back to where I started. Nothing lost. However, now I have a method of carrying in NY that is less stringent that what they already offer.
To me, that sounds like a win, dare I say, something gained?

To others, its either Constitutional Carry for all, or its obviously a trap.
Why dont we start telling our reps top vote for anti-gun bills? Theyre obviously a trap set up by pro-gun representatives.

Your signature expresses how you think, and mine, me.
Too bad thats not how the government works a-now-a-days.

It is an issue though, an issue that needs to be addressed. I completely agree and understand with people's uncertainty about this bill and i definitely have my reservations about it as well but those reservations are primarily with the federal gov't and not with the bill. HR 822 as written is a perfect example of what needs to happen in this country as far as second ammendment goes, notice that i said as written there! If the federal gov't gets their hands on it and decided to go the complete opposite way with it then they could eventually find a way to do so through some red tape somewhere. I believe that if the bill couldnt be ammended in any way then there would be no hesitation on pro-gun side of the house.

Take a look at San Diego and Mercer counties in California, the sheriffs there are requiring "good cause" for you to be eligable in those counties to CCW. The California state constitution says that personal protection is good cause, however, the sheriffs in these counties in particular will not issue with a good cause statement of personal protection. You have to have documentation as to why you consider yourself to be more important than everyone else.

Thats why i believe that HR 822 is a good thing, to stop the "tyranny" (if you will) of people's opinion and get it written and firm. I do believe in states rights and limiting the fed but just like a drivers license i think i should be able to carry whever i am and not have to worry about wether the state that i am in accepts my permit.

Take a look at San Diego and Mercer counties in California, the sheriffs there are requiring "good cause" for you to be eligable in those counties to CCW. The California state constitution says that personal protection is good cause, however, the sheriffs in these counties in particular will not issue with a good cause statement of personal protection. You have to have documentation as to why you consider yourself to be more important than everyone else.

Thats why i believe that HR 822 is a good thing, to stop the "tyranny" (if you will) of people's opinion and get it written and firm. I do believe in states rights and limiting the fed but just like a drivers license i think i should be able to carry whever i am and not have to worry about wether the state that i am in accepts my permit.

Click to expand...

Sorry, misguided thinking - that particular instance needs to be addressed by the folks of California, not the Federal government - it is strictly a California issue and , as such, belongs in their elected reps hands or those of their courts. If the people of SD and Mercer counties felt the issue to be important enough, then the majority would vote for it to be enforced - no Fed intervention necessary there