I went to packing.org to see how many states my Texas CHL will be honored. Including Texas, I can carry a weapon in 25 states, thats half the country. There are also a number of states which Texas will recognize but don't yet have reciprocity but that might? come soon. Some people have obtained an outstate/non-resident CCW license and could carry in even more states (ie. Florida and NH non-resident licenses). Would this be the closest we get to a national CCW law?
How close to a national CCW law?
- Thread starter Tman
- Start date
- Status
Hypnogator
Member
A federal "national CCW" law, while beneficial, would infringe on states rights.
However, a federal mandate that states recognize each other's CC permits or lose all federal law enforcement assistance funds would not be. It wouldn't force the dwindling number of states that don't permit concealed weapons under any circumstances to change their laws, but it would mean that each state would be required to give full faith and credit to the actions of the other states in granting concealed weapons permits.
I don't see either happening soon, but, unlike some here on THR, I view the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004 as the camel's nose under the tent. As soon as it can be shown that all of the dire predictions about us out-of-state and retired cops causing mayhem and endangering the public are just not happening, the credibility of similar arguments against CCW reciprocity will be all but eliminated.
Just my $.02 worth.
However, a federal mandate that states recognize each other's CC permits or lose all federal law enforcement assistance funds would not be. It wouldn't force the dwindling number of states that don't permit concealed weapons under any circumstances to change their laws, but it would mean that each state would be required to give full faith and credit to the actions of the other states in granting concealed weapons permits.
I don't see either happening soon, but, unlike some here on THR, I view the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act of 2004 as the camel's nose under the tent. As soon as it can be shown that all of the dire predictions about us out-of-state and retired cops causing mayhem and endangering the public are just not happening, the credibility of similar arguments against CCW reciprocity will be all but eliminated.
Just my $.02 worth.
RevDisk
Member
No offense, but I'm not really for a national CCW. PA's CCW laws are rather nice. Pay $19, fill out a form, you get a CCW. All burden of proof denying the permit is on the police, and after a certain length of time they must give it to you if they haven't found anything bad. It's good everywhere in the State, except in courtrooms, federal property and at schools.
I don't want manditory training requires, couple hundred dollar fees, "officer's discretion", etc etc. I like PA's system the way it is. Vermont style is, of course, better but PA's system isn't bad. Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. Oh well.
I don't want manditory training requires, couple hundred dollar fees, "officer's discretion", etc etc. I like PA's system the way it is. Vermont style is, of course, better but PA's system isn't bad. Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. Oh well.
Boy, that would really be hard for our masters, er I mean officials, to swallow here in the beneificent PRK. I'm sure they'll honor it only if the perps, er I mean lawfully armed citizens have serialized ammo in those instruments of death, er I mean firearms.
Bob
Bob
nico
Member
I've heard that stated several times and just don't understand the logic behind it. How is the fed. gov. telling the states that they can't violate the Second Amendment a state's rights issue but the fed. gov. telling them they can't violate the full faith and credit clause isn't?
I don't necessarily think a federal CCW law would be a good thing, as it could lead to the feds making laws more restrictive than they already are in a lot of states. But I don't see how the feds telling the states they have to abide by the Constitution is a violation of state's rights.
HighVelocity
Member
Anything that will kick Nevada into line would be good. The honor no states permits but their own. 
Steve in PA
Member
"Our 'lax standards' limit the number of states we with which have reciprocity. "
Exactly. People complain abot how their drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. Well, thats because you don't just walk into your local DMV and walk out 15 minutes later with your DL. Every state has some kind of testing procedure in place. Plus most motor vehicle laws are the same no matter where you are.
Sure it would be nice to have a CCW that is recognized like your DL, but until they can have some type of minimum level of ability, there is not going to be a National CCW.
Exactly. People complain abot how their drivers license is recognized in all 50 states. Well, thats because you don't just walk into your local DMV and walk out 15 minutes later with your DL. Every state has some kind of testing procedure in place. Plus most motor vehicle laws are the same no matter where you are.
Sure it would be nice to have a CCW that is recognized like your DL, but until they can have some type of minimum level of ability, there is not going to be a National CCW.
Cosmoline
Member
The last thing we need is federal involvement in the CCW movement. It needs to stay at the state level. If the Feds got involved, that means the BATF would be involved. And of course the supremacy clause would allow any federal laws or BATF regs to trump state law. Imagine all of a sudden that your state provisions were replaced with a mandatory ID system, gun registration and licensing courtesy of your friends at the BATF.
I can do without that kind of "help."
I can do without that kind of "help."
RevDisk
Member
Yea well, I don't want there to be an arbitrary "minimum level of ability" for reasons Cosmoline just meantioned.
I'm happy with PA level standards. The PA Constitution makes Cali style CCW flat out illegal. Fees/taxes are legal, even if somewhat annoying. Denying lawful citizens their right to bear arms is illegal in PA. Our state Constitution and our state laws say this over and over.
PA Constitution (http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/pa_manual/section2/article_i.pdf)
Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Gray Peterson
Member
I can do without that kind of "help."
Well if it wasn't for that kind of "help", you'd be arrested for merely transporting your handgun across New York State to VT or CT, even if it's in the trunk, locked, seperate from ammo.
Gray Peterson
Member
National CCW...crappy.
National CCW Reciprocity, I whole heartedly support.
Go to Thomas and look up HR1243.
National CCW Reciprocity, I whole heartedly support.
Go to Thomas and look up HR1243.
Igloodude
Member
I think the states with extremely lenient CCW laws would end up getting rogered in the process of negotiating the national version - let's face it, most of them (Alaska, Vermont, New Hampshire, Idaho, and which ones am I missing?) don't have much in the way of US House representation and I don't know that Texas and Florida could balance up against Cali, NY, NJ, and Mass.
Also, I would oppose it on state's rights grounds. The use of Federal tax revenue bribery/extortion on states to "encourage" the states to follow federally-pushed standards annoys me.
Though if they're going to do it anyway, I'd of course prefer they do it for something I'm in favor of instead of something I oppose.
Also, I would oppose it on state's rights grounds. The use of Federal tax revenue bribery/extortion on states to "encourage" the states to follow federally-pushed standards annoys me.
Though if they're going to do it anyway, I'd of course prefer they do it for something I'm in favor of instead of something I oppose.Gray Peterson
Member
What about just CCW reciprocity between states being required under Article 4?
beerslurpy
member
I beleive we fought a war over this one already, and your side of the argument lost. Although there was much chaos from the temporary freeing of the slaves, we did get some nifty amendments to the constitution.
Thanks to the post-war-of-northern-agression 14th amendment, states cannot infringe on the rights of their citizens.
The 2nd amendment enumerates a right to keep and bear arms. So, even though common sense tells us we have this right, the fact that it was placed in the Bill of Rights places it beyond doubt.
The more logical minded among you have no doubt guessed that this gives the federal government the authority to protect the rights of citizens from the infringement of the states.
A state has no more right to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms than it has the ability to legalize slavery, outlaw political speech or quarter soldiers in my home.
jefnvk
Member
Let them go. The states are moving towards that anyways, with the exception of the few that won't budge. I wouldn't be suprised if in the next few years, the states had it worked out that pretty much any permit worked in any states.
Don't start forcing laws on something that is working just to make it move faster. Chances are, you'll only make it worse.
Don't start forcing laws on something that is working just to make it move faster. Chances are, you'll only make it worse.
beerslurpy
member
I actually agree with this, and favor letting the states make up their own mind.
It would help if the MSM wasnt working against us though.
It would help if the MSM wasnt working against us though.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
jefnvk - count me in too on that thought. If the guys in MD - Spot77, Girlwithagun, and so many others fighting the cause - can eventually get it thru there too then there really is hope, so that over time (however frustratingly slow) things can gel into a national reciprocity.
Won't be easy - as much as anything due to different state's training requirements but - there is hope, as long as pressure is maintained by the good folks fighting.
Won't be easy - as much as anything due to different state's training requirements but - there is hope, as long as pressure is maintained by the good folks fighting.
Justin
Moderator Emeritus
The biggest problem with national CCW reciprocity is that it would force those states that allow concealed carry with no permit (Vermont, Alaska, and possibly in the near future, Wyoming) to toe the line with regard to what would most likely be federally mandated training, cost, and renewal requirements.
National CCW reciprocity is at odds with the goals of those states that see no need to either issue permits nor hamper those citizens who wish to exercise their right to carry a defensive firearm.
National CCW reciprocity is at odds with the goals of those states that see no need to either issue permits nor hamper those citizens who wish to exercise their right to carry a defensive firearm.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
Did you notice that sometimes the reason that a state doesn't reciprocate is because they have open carry?
Aguila Blanca
Member
Gotta disagree on this one, Steve. First, it's not an analagous argument. There is no mention in the Bill of Rights regarding the "right" to operate a motor vehicle. Secondly, drive around the country enough and you'll find that the laws really are not so uniform from one state to another. Probably no more so, in fact, than the laws pertaining to use of deadly force (once you get past or set aside the question of "can I legally carry in this state or not?").
In addition, the 2nd Amendment makes no metion of any mandatory training as a prerequisite to exercising the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
The full faith and credit provision is also in the Constitution. It continues to baffle me how the federal gummint can say it applies to some laws, but not to that pesky 2nd Amendment.
Ivy Mike
Member
HighVelocity, I wholeheartedly agree.
While other states honor NV's permit, I think that others won't because NV won't.
It's kinda stupid.
While other states honor NV's permit, I think that others won't because NV won't.
It's kinda stupid.
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
I don't want the federal government within five miles of my holster.
Vitamin G
Member
What the government giveth, the government can taketh away...
(Prohibition anyone?)
The point of the bill of rights is that those rights were bestowed by "the creator" and do NOT come from the government. When they become bestowed by the government, the government can take them back...
Yes, I know if everyone went by that logic, we'd have had revolutions by now...
(Prohibition anyone?)
The point of the bill of rights is that those rights were bestowed by "the creator" and do NOT come from the government. When they become bestowed by the government, the government can take them back...
Yes, I know if everyone went by that logic, we'd have had revolutions by now...
nico
Member
I agree. If the gunnies in the state can all get on the same page I think we may be able to get some progress done.
On a side note (since we're talking about national politics), I found out the other day that Stenny Hoyer is an old friend of my grandmother
38SnubFan
Member
That would be key, but I have another idea.
Allow each state to allow their own laws/processes for Concealed Carry. For a federal permit, the Federal government can make up their own laws and processes.
That way, somelike like me, who may not want to go through all the trouble to apply for and procure a Federal permit, can still go down to his local sheriff, fill out the form, pay the $19, and have his PA License To Carry Firearms. He just won't be able to carry it outside of PA or those states that honor PA's permit.
Seems simple enough to me.
-38SnubFan
- Status
