Why we need National CCW Reciprocity now!

Equal protection under the law ....

It seems insane to think that a person, especially a veteran, but really an law abiding person, could do one thing or possess one item in state A, where it's perfectly legal but in state B it's a serious crime involving serious penalty and jail time!!!

There should be some overarching protection ala the US Constitution that trumps this!

There is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

U.S. Constitution, Ammendment 2.

leadcounsel said:

Equal protection under the law ....

It seems insane to think that a person, especially a veteran, but really an law abiding person, could do one thing or possess one item in state A, where it's perfectly legal but in state B it's a serious crime involving serious penalty and jail time!!!

There should be some overarching protection ala the US Constitution that trumps this!

Click to expand...

People always like to make edge cases for why the rights they don't believe in can be limited. National CCW reciprocity would go hand in hand with marriage certificate reciprocity.

Equal protection under the law ....

It seems insane to think that a person, especially a veteran, but really an law abiding person, could do one thing or possess one item in state A, where it's perfectly legal but in state B it's a serious crime involving serious penalty and jail time!!!

There should be some overarching protection ala the US Constitution that trumps this!

Click to expand...

Agreed!

People always like to make edge cases for why the rights they don't believe in can be limited. National CCW reciprocity would go hand in hand with marriage certificate reciprocity.

Click to expand...

Interesting point - I think you have a valid argument but I take exception on one point: 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but you'll have to refresh me on what the constitution says about marriage. That being said, i don't mean to derail this thread into a marriage argument.

I feel for the guy, but how do you make an "honest mistake" like that? I don't specifically know what the gun laws are in NY, CA, NJ, MA or Illinois, but I know those places are likely to have very different rules than Texas (where I grew up). With that in mind, if I were to visit one of those places with the intent of bringing a gun, I'd do a little research. This is just me speaking for myself - and since I'm in the military which means that I've lived in CO (twice), MO, AR, and 3 places in TX - I do make a point of erring on the side of caution as far as guns are concerned. I'm not trying to flame the guy, but I don't think he's blameless.

The gun was legally owned/possessed in his home state, but the trouble is....he was not in his home state!

I feel for the Marine, but he should have been aware of the gun laws of the states he would be travelling through.

I agree with hpluseleven; the guy's not blameless. I thank him for his service to our country, but has he been under a rock all of his life? How can he NOT know that he was carrying illegally in NYC? Regardless of the Constitution.....the screwy laws of New York are what they are; perhaps this will be the test case that can change things, but I'm reasonably certain that he did not do this, choosing to be the test case.

Sam

Just as it's wise to remain awake & aware of our surroundings from a self-defense perspective, it's also wise from the perspective of any potential restrictions on firearm possession. A portion of CCW responsibility is to know the law. That's why it's part of the class instruction. I don't know all the circumstances or individuals involved. But I DO consider it my OWN responsibility to know & follow the conditions of CCW in my own state as well any state into which I plan to travel. If he's banking on simply the 2nd Amendment to assure his RTC in any/every locale then he is either; making a political statement or is excessively under-informed. But personally being a staunch proponent of State's Rights, I still have reservations about ANY additional Federal CCW Legislation. The Constitution should be enough.

I feel for the Marine, but he should have been aware of the gun laws of the states he would be travelling through.

Click to expand...

I agree. He should have known that gun laws vary from state to state, and made himself aware of the relevent laws before leaving IN. That said, anything more that a stern warning in this case would be ridiculous and a horrible miscarriage of justice.

Why we need National CCW Reciprocity now!

Click to expand...

Nope. This is why all state permitting requirements across this nation, all need to be stricken as unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the article says that the gun was legally registered in his home state.

Indiana doesn't have a gun registry as far as I know.

One other point, even if you don't know the firearms laws in NY, this topic has been on the news a ton recently because several people have done it. You would have to be under a rock not to see the news stories.

Interesting that it seems to keep happening at the Empire State Building, and that the people arrested are model citizens.

its funny, they can trust a marine with some of the most powerful weapons available.............so long as its in another country......

but step foot in NY, and the man is a menace and a danger to society.......huh.

Interesting that it seems to keep happening at the Empire State Building, and that the people arrested are model citizens.

Click to expand...

that's because it is soooo much easier to arrest 'good people', they tell the truth, dont try to run away, and dont fight back or anything.......

I am getting a DEJA VU feeling from this thread! Haven't we just travelled this road?

Nope. This is why all state permitting requirements across this nation, all need to be stricken as unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

To expound a little bit, I think the best, most effective long term strategy is to do two things. 1) Support the SAF in litigation to create really good precedent in the courts, because the SAF cases really are on track to turning the right to carry into a civil rights issue. 2) Support presidential candidates that we will know will appoint true constitutionalists to the bench. There's only one candidate running that meets that requirement, so it should be an easy choice for everyone here.

Sooner or later, NYC will do something that will make for a poster child case to go to the supreme court and they will lose just like DC and Chicago did.

that's because it is soooo much easier to arrest 'good people', they tell the truth, dont try to run away, and dont fight back or anything.......

Click to expand...

Huh?

Quote:
People always like to make edge cases for why the rights they don't believe in can be limited. National CCW reciprocity would go hand in hand with marriage certificate reciprocity.

Interesting point - I think you have a valid argument but I take exception on one point: 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but you'll have to refresh me on what the constitution says about marriage. That being said, i don't mean to derail this thread into a marriage argument.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The argument that all states should be required to honor the carry permit of every other state is different from the second amendment arguement. Under the second amendment arguement permits should not be needed to carry or at least should be available in all states. The reciprocity postion argues that states are or should be required to honor laws and licensing of all other states. While they do in some cases in many they dont, such as many professional licenses. The point is many people only want mandatory state reciprocity when it suits their wants, as in carry permit reciprocity, but not when it doesn't, as in same sex marriage, which is hypocritical.

I follow the 2A argument in that "to bear arms" means to carry them. Since the 2A is part of a federal document and should apply to all states, all states should be required to allow citizens to bear arms.

There is a righteous fear that adding more federal authority, like forcing reciprocity with current permits, would open the door to federal limits. But the Second Amendment is already part of a federal document. Extending it to the states under its true meaning would not be adding anything that is not already there since the founding.

National CCW reciprocity? Man, I'm just trying to get Illinois to enact any kind of CC legislation. I won't be spending time or money on getting a national reciprocity law in place that only applies to 49/50 states. My time and money are being spent on the denial of my 2nd amendment rights in Illinois.

Under Illinois gun laws:

Open carry of a firearm is prohibited.

Concealed carry of a firearm is prohibited.

Blackpowder and muzzleloaders are considered a firearm.

You are required to submit to a state background check, and possess a valid Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) to purchase a firearm. This is in addition to the federal background check (NICS).

You are required to pay $10 for your FOID card, a process that is by law "only" supposed to take 30 days to get issued to you - though in '08 they were backlogged and took months, with no real repercussions - i guess laws only apply to the citizens, not the authorities?

I understand there are difficulties in how current concealed weapons laws are implemented, and that real difficulties are incurred by those who are able to carry concealed, and cross state lines. However, here in Illinois, I sure wish I had the chance to concealed carry, then i'd worry about national reciprocity!

The 2nd amendment gives me the right to keep and bear arms. The fact that Illinois has forgotten that 2nd part will be rectified sometime soon, I hope!!

Quote:
Quote:
People always like to make edge cases for why the rights they don't believe in can be limited. National CCW reciprocity would go hand in hand with marriage certificate reciprocity.


Quote:
Interesting point - I think you have a valid argument but I take exception on one point: 2nd amendment is in the constitution, but you'll have to refresh me on what the constitution says about marriage. That being said, i don't mean to derail this thread into a marriage argument.


The argument that all states should be required to honor the carry permit of every other state is different from the second amendment arguement. Under the second amendment arguement permits should not be needed to carry or at least should be available in all states. The reciprocity postion argues that states are or should be required to honor laws and licensing of all other states. While they do in some cases in many they dont, such as many professional licenses. The point is many people only want mandatory state reciprocity when it suits their wants, as in carry permit reciprocity, but not when it doesn't, as in same sex marriage, which is hypocritical.

Click to expand...

Justin - completely agree with you on the hypocrisy of wanting reciprocity for guns but not for marriage licenses or (insert other hot button issue here).

I'll leave it at that because I don't think I'm prepared to argue that guns shouldn't require reciprocity (as I think is the intent of some peoples' postings). That's a whole other issue and while the libertarian in me would like to see no restrictions on what guns I can buy or carry and when or where, the pragmatist in me sees that some restrictions are reasonable and in some cases even useful. Again, not willing to have that debate on here today so I'll leave it alone.

I think some people on here assume that most people with guns are just as knowledgeable about gun laws as they are and that's a mistake.

I concur. Lots of people aren't hobby lawyers; they just assume that if they don't do anything evil, they won't run too far afoul of the law. For example, lots of people wouldn't even think to ask if there was a problem if granddad in WY gives his favorite deer rifle to his grandkid who is visiting from MT. For that matter, how many people reading this think it's legal to pick up a blue jay feather off the ground and stick it in their hatband?

This is why we have state preemption laws. You could equally argue that people should just research the gun laws of every city and county before traveling - and keep up with changes in all of them.

It would be another thing if we were talking about a $100 fine, but if some states allowed right turn on red and some don't, would folks be OK with a state sending people to prison for three years for that? The law isn't supposed to be about long sentences for obscure crimes that result in little or no harm.

It will be interesting to see if Heller gets extended to carry outside the home.

This may seem harsh, but why don't you check gun laws before carrying in an unknown area. I would never assume that me carrying is legal until I have checked the laws in my destination. This seems like common sense folks.