legal question RE: CCW

[WAGCEVP]

rec'd from a friend in Nevada, any lawyers here?



From: Robert Gimple
Date: 02/07/04 21:45:26
To: PatriciaSaye
Subject: You Wanted This RE: C.C.W.

Here is the scenario we talked about that you wanted to forward to your friend for his input. I would greatly appreciate you forwarding his reply to me. Remember, this is not to debate the gov illegally turning a right into a privilege. It is to obtain credible opinion of my hypothetical defense.

Scenario:

A person obtains a C.C.W. Permit/C.H.L pursuant to their applicable state statutes.

While carrying concealed in a state that does not permit concealed carry or share reciprocity with the issuing state, the person has contact with law enforcement due to a minor infraction, such as inoperable tail lamp or jaywalking.

During the contact the weapon is disclosed/discovered* and the person is subsequently
arrested upon a charge of unlawful c.c.w.(however phrased).

I believe that Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution (Full Faith Clause) should be a
valid defense in this scenario. After all, the arresting state must honor the identification, driver's license, vehicle registration, etc. of the issuing state. Should not they also have to honor the C.C.W. Permit/C.H.L. for the same reason?

* for disclosed/discovered please construe in the following manner:

In a state prohibiting concealed carry, the person follows the issuing state statute with
regard to notification of L.E.O. if carrying.

In a state permitting concealed carry, the person follows that state statute.

If notification is not required, please assume the L.E.O. asked about weapons and the
person was honest in the answer.

I would appreciate any insight or opinion your friend can provide, especially if he is aware of this defense being attempted before. I've been unable to find any case law of a similar nature, 'course I'm not the greatest researcher either.

 

[El Tejon]

One would have better luck with ancient and absolute right of gay marriage or welfare checks.

The Constitution is not applicable to guns.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

WAGCEVP, there are many state level things that do not transfer from state to state. Just because a DL does is no indication that a CHL should. Licenses to teach, practice medicine, some legal licensing, building licenses, etc. do not transfer to other states.

Keep in mind that you do have to obey by state laws and if the law of the state does not allow for CCW, then just because you have a license from another state does not mean you can CCW in the state that bans it.

You can try the ploy in court, if you like, but it isn't going to hold up. As El Tejon noted, the Constitution doesn't seem to apply to guns, as per court rulings. Otherwise, you would not need a CCW permit/CHL at all.

 

[El Tejon]

Hmmm, what if you said you were married to your gun and you were both of the same gender or, a la Larry v. Tejas, what if you engage in certain practices with the gun, but not use it as a weapon? Those may get one further than any silly invocation of some actual right.

Far better to stick with the anti-Constitution than any actual civil right.

 

[sctman800]

One of the people I work with is a CCW holder from Indiana, we work in Illinois. A while back he was stopped for tail light or some such thing, and the cop found he had a gun. IIRC in holster, loaded, in plain sight, cost him around $1200 and some probation time. So don't try it in Illinois. Jim.