Best CCW law?

[bobs1066]

I'm planning to refer my local legislative critters to laws in other states that permit CCW. What states have the strongest, most comprehensive CCW laws? In other words, what state should be the model for the future Kansas CCW law?
Inquiring minds want to know.....

 

[Ian]

Vermont, definitely.

 

[feedthehogs]

Any law that restricts is a bad law.

No restriction open or concealed carry is the best!

 

[Jeeper]

Vermont is not the law to model unless all states did it. Model it after Alaska. This allows the citizens of alaska to have reciprocity and vise-versa. Vermont citizens cant carry anywhere else since they dont actually have a license.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Reasonableness has to be a part of this question. Remember he said best CCW law. Did he want the best law he could have or the best law he could pass?

Myself, I would have the KBI do the licensing, have reconignition of all out of state permits like Missouri does, and nothing too onerous training or fee wise.

As for restrictions, secured courthouses and federally prohibited areas. Remember that gun haters don't care about the restrictions, they just hate guns and will oppose any CCW bill no matter what kind of stuff you put it. Might as well go for the gusto.

 

[Standing Wolf]

As for restrictions, secured courthouses and federally prohibited areas. Remember that gun haters don't care about the restrictions, they just hate guns and will oppose any CCW bill no matter what kind of stuff you put it. Might as well go for the gusto.

I think you're right, although frankly, I see no reason to preclude carry in secured legal facilities and federal areas. Our lives are worth defending wherever we are, and if the federal government wants to enforce its own policies, that should be its responsibility, not a state's. The rest of your statement is dead on the money.

 

[bobs1066]

I just don't see Kansas jumping all the way from no CCW to a Vermont-style system. I'll check out Alaska & see what their laws look like.
Thanks for the input.
BTW, I was defining 'best' as the least restrictive permit system that could possibly get thru the legislature & actually become law.

 

[durango]

One key component to any law is that there be a rule against any cities or counties passing local restrictions. We have such a law here in Washington state and (if I understand it correctly) it keeps liberal municipalities from outlawing CCW.

 

[CasualShooter]

In other words, what state should be the model for the future Kansas CCW law?

IMHO Florida's ain't bad, and wern't they the first? Didn't they start the "shall issue" about 20 years ago? It's true that I'm gettin' older, Someone please correct me, if my memory's slippin'.

I agree that Missouri has a better provision regarding recognition of licenses/permits issued by all other States and political subdivisions thereof; whereas, Florida's recognition is contigent on a reciprocity agreement with each State. Just a few month ago, Oklahoma adopted a provision similar to Missouri's in this regard.

Missouri's also has a better provision regarding the records of those issued the endorsement or permit. Under Missouri's Law these are Closed Records; whereas, Florida's are open records except that LEO's, past and present, can "opt out" on that one.

Following closely on the heels of Missouri's success coupled with the fact that it's an adjoining state, there may be some political advantage to using Missouri as the Model. Many in the KC Metro area will already be familiar with it by the time it's introduced in Kansas and it has been recently debated and covered there in the press. And it DID pass by an OVERRIDE of a Democratic Governor's VETO. One might hope that fact wouldn't be lost on the current Democratic Governor in Kansas. It could use some tweeking, of course, like lowering the age from 23 to 21.

Perhaps the most important thing is Firearms Legislation Preemption. Without Preemption, any CCW bill passed in Kansas would be effectively killed, for all practical purposes, by all the subordinate political subdivisions within the State.

Missouri's Statutes on Preemption provide:
<http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c000-099/0210750.htm>

Firearms legislation preemption by general assembly, exceptions.
21.750. 1. The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state. Any existing or future orders, ordinances or regulations in this field are hereby and shall be null and void except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

2. No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies except as provided in subsection 3 of this section.

3. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any ordinance of any political subdivision which conforms exactly with any of the provisions of sections 571.010 to 571.070, RSMo, with appropriate penalty provisions, or which regulates the open carrying of firearms readily capable of lethal use or the discharge of firearms within a jurisdiction. This section shall take effect on January 1, 1985.

Note that this allows political subdivisions to regulate Open Carry within their boundaries; but, CONCEALED CARRY may NOT be restricted except as specifically provided in Missouri's State Statutes i.e., the LTC bill.

And BTW the entire LTC bill as recently passed into law in Missouri may be viewed at the following link for any of you who may be interrested:

<http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills03/biltxt/truly/HB0349T.HTM>

GO, KANSAS!!

BTW, I'd be glad to help with this in any way that I can if you want to drop me a PM.

 

[sturmruger]

MN

I believe that Minnesota's has the best law. They have added some very interesting twists that make this law exceptional especially the rules pertaining to posting an establishment.

Pros:

• Businesses must follow strict guidelines to post "no guns" similar to TX 30:06.
• If they actually follow all of the guidelines for posting you can still legally enter their establishment, until you are asked to leave.
• If the signs are not legal they cannot ask you to leave because you have a firearm.
• They allow you to drop off kids at school
• Local Preemption
• Allows for emergency issuance
• No statute limiting carrying at eating establishment that serves liquor i.e. (Applebee’s, Fridays)

Cons:

• $100 permit fee.
• Stupid Reciprocity rules

 

[CasualShooter]

Businesses must follow strict guidelines to post "no guns" similar to TX 30:06.

If they actually follow all of the guidelines for posting you can still legally enter their establishment, until you are asked to leave.

If the signs are not legal they cannot ask you to leave because you have a firearm.

They allow you to drop off kids at school

Local Preemption

Allows for emergency issuance

No statute limiting carrying at eating establishment that serves liquor i.e. (Applebee’s, Fridays)

Upon reading Missouri's, I believe you will find that they pretty well have these covered, except "emergency issuance" perhaps and Missouri's "Reciprocity Rules" are MUCH better than Minnesota's.

Missouri recognizes ANY endorsement or permit to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state.

Also, some states allow concealed carry of Firearms only. Missouri's concealed carry endorsement allows the carrying of other weapons in addition to firearms.

Missouri Statutes have included Preemption for nearly 2 decades and that was not changed (nor mentenioned since it was already law) in the Missouri CCW Bill.

Preemption DOES need to be speciffically provided in any CCW Bill to be considered for Kansas or local jurisdictions throughout the state will effectively negate it just like they have done with the states current provisions for open carry.

 

[El Tejon]

bobs, I do not understand what you mean by "strongest, most comprehensive"??? Would you not desire the inverse of this?

 

[repsychler]

sturmruger
If the signs are not legal they cannot ask you to leave because you have a firearm.

Not exactly true. Any shopkeep can ask you to leave for any reason they care to invent. (Aside from maybe race, etc) If you don't leave, you're trespassing, CCW makes no difference.

Stupid Reciprocity rules

Yeah, I agree with that. It'd be nice to have recipricity with the border states, and I'd like to have reciprocity with Mississippi and Louisiana. I'm pondering whether or not I want to shell out for a Florida permit for the one week a year I spend down there.

 

[bobs1066]

El Tejon, by "strongest, most comprehensive" I meant strong as in protecting a citizen's right to carry, comphrehensive as in allowing CCW under all circumstances/ in all places.

 

[sturmruger]

MN Trespass

Repsychler you are correct they could ask you to leave for just about any reason they could think up. To be guilty or tresspassing though you would have to be found guilty in a court of law. From reading the law and talking to some of the MNCCRN organizers they believe you would have a good legal challenge to the trespassing law as it stands now. Since the new law specifically lays out what needs to happen before someone can ask you to leave. We really won't know for sure until someone challenges this in court

The downside to the Missouri law is that you have to be 23! I am only 25 and got my permit in IA when I was 22. If I lived in MO I think that I would have been mad that I had to wait 12 more months to be able to apply.

From reading the new WI law it looks like it is going to be equally as good as the MN, and MO law. Right now the only downside I can see to the WI law is it requires allot of training 22 hours, but that might change. Training is always a good thing, but it does make getting your permit allot more expensive.

 

[TheOtherOne]

Utah's is good

There are very few restrictions on Utah's CCW laws. You can carry at alot of places that other states say are off-limits (schools and bars, for example). Restrictions are pretty much what the federal laws say, like post offices and airports. You also can't carry in secure court houses or jails.

The cons are the $59 BCI fee, paying for fingerprints, the passport photo and the 3 hour training class that most people charge $25-50 for. They also put a record with your drivers license info that you have a CCW and, if stopped by a cop, you are required to tell them that you are armed.

 

[GregoryTech]

Picking Nits

Florida's recognition is contigent on a reciprocity agreement with each State.

Florida only requires recognition of a FL license, not a reciprocal agreement. As an example, AZ will not reciprocate with FL but as part of new newly exapnded "regonition" does recognize the FL license. As a result, an AZ license is valid in FL.

 

[CasualShooter]

I want to shell out for a Florida permit for the one week a year I spend down there.

Why not? Florida's permit is good for 5 years .

 

[Monkeyleg]

sturmruger, the references you've seen to the "22 hours" of training for WI are misleading. As it stands right now, training would consist of an NRA handgun safety course, NRA hunter safety course, NRA self-defense course, proof of military service, or proof of law enforcement service.

If our bill would pass intact, it would be one of the best, if not the best, in the country: reciprocity for all states; minimal training; "reasonable" fee; carry allowed in restaurants; no restrictions on the guns you can carry; no fingerprinting; carry when travelling through school zones; blood alcohol level pegged to that for driving; and other goodies. The $64,000 question is how much of that will remain intact after floor debate.

I had a slightly heated discussion with an old friend of mine over the bill. He thinks the legislators are selling us out by writing a bill that requires licensing. He, like all of us here, feels that the 2nd gives us the right to carry. If I were willing to spend weekends in jail and $1500 or so on attorney fees anytime I got arrested, I guess I'd stand on principle as well.

 

[ARperson]

The kind that doesn't exist.

Indiana has pretty good laws. Shall-issue state. Means you apply and you get basically. No bogus training requirement. While it might be nice if everybody knew the law, no training or classes means no restrictions on the right to carry as it should be. The only restrictions on carrying in public are government buildings, schools, perhaps bars (not too sure on this one since I don't frequent them and it's never been an issue), airports, and gambling facilities. There are some regs for hunting, but that's generally not the issue here. The one stipulation for the permit is that it is required for all carry types, whether open or concealed.

I'd say my biggest gripe with the laws concerns the question of open carry. I have yet to find a law (or a LEO who knows) that directly answers whether one may carry open. To date, no law has been found in my endeavors that specifically prohibits it. And the laws regarding carrying, simply state that a permit is required to carry; no mention of open or concealed (though concealed is legal via the permit). It's getting confusing, isn't it?


Anyhow, I think Indiana is a good model for CCW laws, if one must have them.