National Reciprocity

A national CCW reciprocity law would essentially work like driving does today. Your license from your home state is good in other states as long as you are not deemed a resident. Of course, you have to follow that state's laws while you're there.

It's a nice idea but it will probably not happen anytime soon. A few states have no CCW. Some are very restrictive on giving permits, some are easy. The list of prohibited places varies from state to state. Genearlly the easier it is to get a permit the more restrictive it is.

Just keep Washington DC as far as possible from my carry permit. Its a state issue and We don't need any Washington help. They would take this simple matter turn in into a 50,000 page bill and attach evey thing they could. And then smile and tell us how great of job they did.

H.R. 4547 and S.3275

would require all states to recognize CCWs from all other states. For those states that do not have CCW provisions (WI and IL), it would establish a minimum standard of where and when concealed firearms could be carried by licensees.

Both bills are stuck in their repsective chamber judiciary committees. H.R. 4547 was filed by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL); S.3275 by Sen. George Allen (R-VA).

I like that idea better. A national CHL would be a red-tape nightmare. Just require all states to recognize mine and I'll be happy.

My somewhat educated and knowledgeable guess is one of them - probably HR 4547 - comes up for a vote by November. If it looks like a close election going into November, then you might see both floated in October in an attempt to force the Ds into opposing gun rights prior to the election.

This is a nasty can of worms that many gun owners want to open...tempting and understandable, but bad things can (and will) come of this.

.....MICHAELT and NineseveN are getting REAL warm, almost winners. Fact is, there will NEVER EVER be national reciprocity! NO F'n WAY!! Give it up, and do NOT let the fedgods get involved AT ALL!! Trust me, THAT would be the dictionary definition of "clusterf*ck". National rec is a nice, convenient pipe-dream, but once beyond that stage it is destined to be a NIGHTMARE.
Does ANYONE here SERIOUSLY believe any beneficial concept is capable of sailing through Congress unscathed??!! That egg won't hatch....ever!! Agreed, it's too bad. Reality of Life. Deal with it. Nothing but pain and suffering could ever result from such an "accomplishment". Believe me, you DON'T want to open that door.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it!! (with the very fiber of my soul.)

This is why we fail

That egg won't hatch....ever!! Agreed, it's too bad. Reality of Life. Deal with it. Nothing but pain and suffering could ever result from such an "accomplishment". Believe me, you DON'T want to open that door.

Click to expand...

That's not just

But also.

....ah, yes; the Niave Idealist. Massacred by WOD, WOT, etc. A true sacrificial lamb, paving the Road to Hell with Good Intentions.....
"They" couldn't even manage Katrina, practised confiscation, etc. .....think Nat Rec will fare any better????????:banghead: Just build a bridge (and Get Over It)

A national CCW reciprocity would imply that the Feds would tell states like Illinois that CCW holders can carry in their state....and that ain’t happening.

would it be awesome to establish a NATIONAL EQUAL RIGHT TO ARMS. yes. people in OH to be able to carry same as people in texas, CA able to get 15 rounders, MA to get "assault weapons" that would be awesome, wed all be NH!

sadly the pinkos and thier master clinton would try to turn us all into CA

Does anyone think for one minute that those of us that live in free states now would not be burdened with the silly hoops of training requirements, further instances of places where carry is off-limits, changes to laws on open carry, brandishing, and even deadly force? In order to make things less complicated nationally, the politicians will insist on some modicum of uniformity. Good for Kali, Illinois and New Jersey, and for the rest of us (the more free a state is, the worse this is for them).

And then we've opened the door to allowing the FedGov to legislate what should be (and is) State's Rights when it comes to firearms.

Yeah, I know this only sounds like they want fair faith and credit to apply to carry permits, but if that's all this is intended to do, why not just pass a law that fair faith and credit applies to firearms permits or any permits (non occupational) that is issued by a state. Simple enough, and the fact that this legislation is not worded in that manner and takes so much to say so much less and so much more is just a sign of trouble.

Is there a Federal Law requiring all States to honor out of state DL's? Or is it state by state?

Is there even a Federal Law that requires a marriage in one state be recognised in all others?

I'm not enthused by the idea of a Federal concealed carry permit.

I might be perswaded to accept the idea of a carry permit issued in one state must be accepted in another AND it is an afermative defense in any criminal or civil action that the permitee has a valid resident permit from that other state. None of this "well you have to follow CA laws even though you are a resident of AK or VT".

Hey, NineSeven,

READ THE BILLS. It doesn't mandate standards for ANY state's CCWs. All it does is tell states like IL, WI, NY, MA, etc that they MUST recognize the carry licenses from other states.

No "federal CCW." No "worst lowest denominator" of training requirements, etc. If your state makes you jump through hoops like training etc, you do just that. If you live in a state that doesn't require training, then NO training.

Or at least remove the colander from your head before you post!!!

READ THE BILLS. It doesn't mandate standards for ANY state's CCWs. All it does is tell states like IL, WI, NY, MA, etc that they MUST recognize the carry licenses from other states.

No "federal CCW." No "worst lowest denominator" of training requirements, etc. If your state makes you jump through hoops like training etc, you do just that. If you live in a state that doesn't require training, then NO training.

Or at least remove the colander from your head before you post!!!

Click to expand...

I am not overjoyed with it, but it does fix some problems for a lot of people. I am not convinced it has been thought through very well though. there are some unanswered questions.

For instance,presumably this bill would make it legal for a NH resident with a permit to CC in NYC. What if he was staying overnight and took it off when he went to bed. Arguably he is no longer involved in a CC situation and has committed a felony in NYC.

What if he happened to have HPs in his 6 shooter while CC in NJ?

Or had "high capacity" magazines in MA?

I am sure we can all come up with a whole bunch of issues that would be a huge mess.

On top of that, there is the issue of where in the constitution does it say congress has this authority?

Well it can work for drivers licenses. They just have to accept them as valid and as legal.

In some states a 15 year old can drive. I think California has stronger laws about emissions standards on cars but you can drive your California car in Texas, New York, Delaware, etc.

So it can work if some of us take a layer of tinfoil off of our helmets. Thats all.

Sorry, Tecumsah

I have the tinfoil concession here and I'm making bazillions!

I just think it's stupid I can't drive 5 miles north of where I work with my CCW because they don't recognize my right there. I don't like having to plan trips and try to map out which states recognize my right and which don't. I'd just like a (to quote Eric Cartman) "You will respect my authoritah!" type of system where if somebody is licenced by their state, all others respect it. Even though it's a slap to the face that we have to get permission to legally carry in the first place.
I'm sure the biggest opponents of it will be the "check your rights at the boarder" states like Kali and DC that deny their own citizens the right, let alone visitors.

Some of you people need to reel things in and stop with the "tin foil hat" insults. Not very becoming of The High Road and rather childish at that.

It seems awfully short-sighted to ignore the idea that any legislation can be amended at the last minute with provisions unrelated to or directly against the original intent of the bill. The problem comes when you authorize the federal government to exert authority where it doesn't belong (i.e. in state matters) because a bill that heads to a vote that says "the right to carry a concealed weapon of non-residents with CCW permits in their home state need to be honored by all states when that person is visiting or traveling through that state via national reciprocity can end up saying "Also, in the interest of uniformity and safety, all states that issue CCW permits must require mandatory safety training for issuance of said permits and permit holders must demonstrate a compelling need for the application of a permit to carry a concealed firearm" as well. It's a very common practice in politics to grease the wheels on a vote by adding compromise provisions into a bill so that the majority of the other side will pass the legislation...some people haven't been paying attention obviously.

I don't want the federal government compromising for me without my consent on what amounts to a state matter, not a federal one. If you want to carry in other states, get non-resident permits with reciprocity in the states you want to carry in (or at least honor the other state's permits) like the rest of us and compel your attorney general to work harder on reciprocity.


But you guys keep cooing with jabs of “tin foil hats” all you like. Try to buy a machine gun lately?

Some of you folks need to research your state laws on drivers licensing.

There is no federal law that mandates reciprocity. The states themselves, signed various compacts that allow you to drive outside your home state on your home state license.

Funny thing about that... We seem to be headed in the exact same direction, as regards reciprocity of CCW permits.

Now tell me again why you would want the Feds to stick their noses into a state issue?

It actually is the full faith and credit clause of the constitution that should already apply to CCW permits. Those states that want to deny it altogether would still be able to, but restrictive states like NY and NJ who issue on a limited basis should have to recognize my license because of this clause in the constitution...

Of course NY and NJ don't even recognize federal law (safe passage) when it comes to handguns so why would they recognize the constitution...

The Drew:

The "full faith and credit" provision of Article IV, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

People keep looking at the first part when talking about "full faith and credit" and ignoring the second part, much to our potential detriment.

Driving is a privilege, owning and carrying guns is an explicitly enumerated right. Apples and oranges. One does require "full faith and credit", the other should not (because it doesn't by the very nature of the right and the amendment that enumerates it).

it says that a system may be setup for how those records are verified not how they are implemented in the first place...

Congress for example cannot tell states what requirements there are for drivers licenses.... They can regulate how the states exchange data pertaining to drivers licenses, and by way of extorsion they can withhold funding if the drivers license doesn't comply with a certain format (real ID)

I don't know why so many are so afaid of this bill. It compromises nothing in it's current form. While that can change, and if it does I won't support it. But right now it is great legislation that would really be a major victory for the RKBA.

Great!

Why don't they just pass a law that will uphold the Bill of Rights. It seems to me we already have an amendment that covers equal rights for all, not just some states:banghead: