How does National CCW Reciprocity work with states that are Constitutional Carry?

[Aim1]

So, I can understand if National CCW Reciprocity is passed and you are in WI and have a MN ccw permit, but what happens when you are from a state that has Constitutional Carry like Alaska and are in MN that requires a permit to carry? Do you just say that you're Alaskan, show them your Alaskan ID/DL to prove that you are an Alaskan resident and then you are good to go?

 

[General Geoff]

Depends on the precise language in whatever bill actually passes, if such a bill passes.

 

[JohnBiltz]

Arizona still issues CCW to people who want them. There are a number of reasons to get them like carrying in another state.

 

[MedWheeler]

National reciprocity is a non-issue. Speculating about what it entails is impossible since, as something that does not exist, it entails nothing.

 

[hso]

what happens

There's no way to know how something in the political world that doesn't exist will or won't work in detail.

 

[Tirod]

The potential of having National Reciprocity has been just a few votes in Congress from being made law more than once. It's been repeatedly introduced and will eventually pass.

The real issue is State's Rights - The state can impose a vetting process which requires certification to carry of some kind. MO has gone that route, which is typical. Classes, range fire, and fingerprinting before issuing a permit. Now the legislature is considering Constitutional Carry. No, I won't get my money back, either.

If it passes and I enter CA I fully expect them to require and check for some official documentation of certification. MO eliminated it from the Driver's License as a measure of privacy. I well imagine a permit to carry will still be a legal requirement once I'm on their turf.

Like CCW and it's history, some states will drag things out and make it difficult as a last ditch anti gun measure. You might be legal carrying but getting delayed 24 - 72 hours to prove you are certified to THEIR standards will still be an issue. We can grump about it being no different than a driver's license or marriage certificate, but there you go. That's been a hot topic the last five years, hasn't it? Never saw that coming.

Expect trouble - the coasties aren't going to give up. New Jersey isn't going to suddenly reverse course and welcome armed travelers without getting their pound of flesh. It really won't be much different until further legislation and court battles make it so, and we will likely not win them all.

Edited to add: BTW, Im a Vet with 22 years service and retired USAR who qualified on the 1911, M9, M16, A1,A2, M203, M249, M60, MK17, M2 blah blah blah. Carried the 1911 in service and the M9 on duty working the gates at Ft. Benning. Did MO give me ANY credit for knowing how to handle a firearm and shoot it? Of course not. I had to line up and pay up like everybody else.

States can do exactly as they want regardless of Federal documentation, so there's the problem.

 

[txblackout]

Im generally against federally enforced reciprocity. It is just another thing for the federal govt to get their hands into.

However, constitutional carry states could still produce an ID that people could obtain or possibly an addendum on their driver's license.

 

[HexHead]

Edited to add: BTW, Im a Vet with 22 years service and retired USAR who qualified on the 1911, M9, M16, A1,A2, M203, M249, M60, MK17, M2 blah blah blah. Carried the 1911 in service and the M9 on duty working the gates at Ft. Benning. Did MO give me ANY credit for knowing how to handle a firearm and shoot it? Of course not. I had to line up and pay up like everybody else.

Nor should they have. One of the main reasons for the state training before you're given a permit is learning your state's laws pertaining to self defense. And yeah, you can pay for your permit, just like the rest of us.

 

[rtroha]

The potential of having National Reciprocity has been just a few votes in Congress from being made law more than once. It's been repeatedly introduced and will eventually pass.

...and will be signed by which president? Obama? The second President Clinton?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

How does National CCW Reciprocity work with states that are Constitutional Carry?


For state reciprocity most Constitutional Carry states appear to have a weapons carry permit for out-of-state reciprocity purposes.

Tennessee has formal reciprocity agreements with states that recognize the Tennessee Handgun Carry Permit; Tennessee also recognizes any valid and current state-issued carry permit without requiring reciprocity just as the state recognizes valid out of state marriage certificates or drivers license. I think it is the way all states should go and keep the federal hand out of it.

 

[Sam1911]

There's no way to know how something in the political world that doesn't exist will or won't work in detail.

Exactly right. It's sort of like asking what the carry-on baggage weight limit will be on the first interstellar flights. Not much reason to guess at an answer because nobody has worked out how to do it in the first place. Until such a thing actually is brought into existence, there's no way to say what the minor details surrounding it will end up being.

Could be like this. Could be like that. When there's a bill going to the President's desk, or actually signed, then we can answer the question.

(Or...if you want to be more proactive, figure out how to get involved in the drafting of that bill. Then YOU can tell US how non-permit states will be handled! )

 

[Midwest]

There are three states that still refuse to offer carry permits to it's residents *. They are New Jersey, Maryland and Hawaii. Until those states start issuing carry permits, I can't see how there could be any national reciprocity.


* NJ, MD and Hawaii are essentially no issue. The permits that do get issued are for armed guards, LEO or former LEO and 'politically connected people'.

My point is how can there reciprocity with those three states if they refuse to issue carry permits to it's residents? Those states could claim that since that they don't issue carry permits, they aren't obligated to accept carry permits from other states.

(In California and New York State, you can get a carry permit. If you live in the right county, and perhaps jump through some hoops. But that is not the case in NJ, MD and HI. In those states, you just can't move to another county or city. The entire state is off limits for getting a carry permit if you are just an average law abiding citizen)

I'm not trying to put a damper on all of this, but how can we have any chance of reciprocity if three states still refuse to issue carry permits? I don't think it is possible.

And then the problem with national reciprocity is, what national requirements and national standards will there be for national reciprocity? Based on which state's laws? New York's or Idaho's?

If it were possible to expand LEOSA to include anyone with a carry permit. That might be one way, but I don't see how it would be possible.

We need to change the laws of three states to include some kind of shall issue or 'Most Likely Issue' first or there can't be any possible way for national reciprocity. I mean how can you have national reciprocity with only 47 states issuing permits?
.

 

[MAKster]

While I don't think it is going to happen, the specifics of such a law are not just hypothetical. Actual legislation has been introduced such as H.R. 986 introduced by Congressman Hudson of North Carolina. His bill would require the person to carry a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm. So under his bill people who carry in their home state without a license would not have reciprocity in other states that require a permit.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/986/text

 

[JohnBiltz]

I think most of you are making this more complicated than it is. I live in Arizona which has true constitutional carry, that is it is in our state constitution. I have an issued CCW. I use it to carry in several states that have reciprocity. Essentially whatever the details of a national carry law would be it would it function the same as a negotiated carry agreement between states.

 

[Theohazard]

Essentially whatever the details of a national carry law would be it would it function the same as a negotiated carry agreement between states.

How do you know this? You have no way of knowing what the details of a national carry law would be.

This whole thread is pointless considering there is no viable national legislation anywhere.

 

[Spats McGee]

Personally, I do not want the federal gov't involved in any sort of national CCW reciprocity. It's one small step from "we'll mandate that all states recognize CCLs" to "we'll mandate national standards for everyone's CCLs." That invites our esteemed congressional members from (for example) CA, NJ, NY and IL to vote on what my state requires for issuing a CHCL.

No, thank you.

I'd much rather see the states enter into a Compact on Concealed Carry Licenses, much in the same way that they have done with driver licenses.

 

[TimSr]

If "Constitutional carry" is truly Constitutional, then reciprosity of carry permits or licenses is a moot point. Concealed carry permits have been a necessary evil in order to incrementally gain back rights that have been lost, and is a great stepping stone to Constitutional carry in many states.

The question before us now is does national reciprosity harm this state by state effort by giving the federal government power over the states in these efforts, and by acknowledging that the states have the authority to restrict 2nd Amendment rights to begin with? The position that carrying is a US Constitutional right is at odds with recognition of state laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment. The net effect is that on the plus side, it grants state given PRIVILEGES in anti-gun states to out of state residents, but also gives anti-gun state representatives power to meddle in the carry laws of pro-gun states.

This has been compared to drivers licenses yet again, and maybe somebody else can answer, but I'm not aware of anything at the federal level that mandates driver's license reciprosity. Is that not matter of each state's laws?

 

[Tirod]

If Constitutional Carry is passed, there are NO classes. The citizen is required to know the law, ignorance is no excuse.

I got more out of Massad Ayoob's books on CCW than the course gave me. I understood the reasons that the classroom portions barely touch on.

And if Reciprocity is passed it can be done without a Presidential Signature. Congress can override a veto.

Vermont has been Constitutional Carry from Day One and as each state surrounding MO considers and passes Constitutional Carry no mention of a required class is in the bill. Just like driver's ed - which has been removed from the course offerings in our state.

Which kills more people - driving drunk or concealed carry? it's apparent that there is an agenda. We lose more teens to drunk driving nationwide annually than we have lost in Afghanistan overall. Yet we have to be forced to attend classes on concealed carry - but a 16 year old can get a license and a quart from the family liquor cabinet and splatter himself and his prom date against a tree at high speed, with more laws broken and less done about it.

They investigate a shooting and discuss it for weeks in the press, the local LEO's are done in less than half a days work and after the funerals it's over and done. Another little cross on the side of the road.

Priorities people - concealed carry isn't a problem or even a major problem. It's anti gun sentiment and it shows.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . . This has been compared to drivers licenses yet again, and maybe somebody else can answer, but I'm not aware of anything at the federal level that mandates driver's license reciprosity. Is that not matter of each state's laws?

There is nothing at the federal level which mandates recognition of DLs as between states. (And to those who are thinking "Full Faith and Credit," no. That's not it.) DLs are between the states because of the passage of the Driver License Compact.

 

[Twiki357]

After all this discussion, the OPs question was how would National CCW Reciprocity work with states that have constitutional carry.

The simple answer, as far as I know, all those states also issue CCW permits. Not sure about Vermont though.

 

[TimSr]

There is nothing at the federal level which mandates recognition of DLs as between states. (And to those who are thinking "Full Faith and Credit," no. That's not it.) DLs are between the states because of the passage of the Driver License Compact.

Interesting that there are only 41 states listed in this compact. Looks more like an agreement to share data than to recognize another state's license.

Do agree that any type of reciprocity should be via agreements between the states, and not a federal mandate. I really don't want NY Chuck Shumer setting the criteria under which Ohio may recognize Kentucky's carry permit. The only federal involvement that can have any good come of it would be the US Supreme Court determining that Constitutional carry is, in fact, Constitutional.

 

[Smitty79]

National reciprocity doesn't work as long as the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act is in place. This is something we need to repeal. I know lots of people say they just ignore this. I prefer not to ignore things that can put me in federal prison.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/BATFLetterONGFSZ2013.pdf

 

[Sam1911]

Again, we have no real idea of what terms of THE law would be, because there is no law truly under consideration at this point.

However, a few points to ponder:

I really don't want NY Chuck Shumer setting the criteria under which Ohio may recognize Kentucky's carry permit.

It would be very odd for the federal government to set what might be considered the UPPER limit of reciprocity agreements, rather than the minimums. In other words, a federal law would be likely to say, essentially, "states must AT LEAST recognize the right of citizens of other states to carry under these limited conditions."

Not, "states may ONLY recognize the rights of citizens of other states to carry IF these conditions are met."

While both are serious states' rights matters, the general way such things go is that states can go as far as they want in (in this case) recognizing each other's permits -- including VT style "anybody law abiding person can carry, period" -- so long as they at least abide by the more restrictive terms of the federal law.

So Chuck Schumer, and all his buddies in the Congress, wouldn't be likely to be saying anything at all to states who already meet the minimum requirements. The new law would be effectively irrelevant to them. They'd really only be putting a burden onto states who DON'T meet those minimums now.

An analogy is a federal speed limit standard tied to federal highway money. If the law says a state must set a maximum speed limit of 65 mph in order to receive federal dollars, that doesn't change life for states who already have 55 or 60 or 65 mph maximum speed limits. It isn't like the federal law also says, "AND you can't drive slower than 63..."

Of course...we have no absolutely concrete idea of that until SOMETHING is close to passing.

The only federal involvement that can have any good come of it would be the US Supreme Court determining that Constitutional carry is, in fact, Constitutional.

Again, it can't be proper to say that the ONLY federal involvement that could be a positive is that, because you can't really argue that forcing MD or NJ or HI to recognize the carry permits of all US citizens is a net bad thing.

But on the other hand, the Court has never really walked very close to the idea that states cannot put limits on who carries firearms where, and that would be an almost impossible to imagine development. Heller and McDonald were amazing decisions that most of us believed we'd never see. But a SCOTUS decision that going out and about armed is a fundamental right, through the whole country, irrespective of any state law to the contrary, would pretty much be a modern day miracle.

National reciprocity doesn't work as long as the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act is in place.

And this isn't really so. National reciprocity isn't any more hampered than state-to-state reciprocity by GFSCA. That's a bad law, largely unenforced, but seriously dangerous to lots of good folks who intend to be law abiding in all things. It should be struck down. But it doesn't really stand as a roadblock to a possible national reciprocity bill. Just a dangerous pitfall to folks who do carry out-of-state.

 

[Spats McGee]

Again, we have no real idea of what terms of THE law would be, because there is no law truly under consideration at this point.

Agreed, on this point.

However, a few points to ponder:

I really don't want NY Chuck Shumer setting the criteria under which Ohio may recognize Kentucky's carry permit.

It would be very odd for the federal government to set what might be considered the UPPER limit of reciprocity agreements, rather than the minimums. In other words, a federal law would be likely to say, essentially, "states must AT LEAST recognize the right of citizens of other states to carry under these limited conditions."

Not, "states may ONLY recognize the rights of citizens of other states to carry IF these conditions are met."

While both are serious states' rights matters, the general way such things go is that states can go as far as they want in (in this case) recognizing each other's permits -- including VT style "anybody law abiding person can carry, period" -- so long as they at least abide by the more restrictive terms of the federal law.

So Chuck Schumer, and all his buddies in the Congress, wouldn't be likely to be saying anything at all to states who already meet the minimum requirements. The new law would be effectively irrelevant to them. They'd really only be putting a burden onto states who DON'T meet those minimums now. . . . .

With all due respect, Sam, I disagree. I think that it's very likely that the Distinguished Congresscritters of more populous, gun-control-leaning states would push bills that would either:
(1) Exempt their own states unless certain requirements (training minimums, FOIDs, etc.) were met. This would likely be done on the front end of the legislative process; and/or

(2) Push to mandate minimum standards for the issuance of CCLs at the federal level. I can see this happening either as an amendment to bills going through, or after the fact, in a "We have a federal law on CC, so we have to have national standards" kind of way.

 

[Warp]

There's no way to know how something in the political world that doesn't exist will or won't work in detail.

This precisely ^

There is no such thing, so there is no such thing.

Nor should there be, IMO. The "so we have to have national standards" potential posted right above this would be my number one objective reason. Just one of a plethora