National permit recognition gains support

[gunsmith]

personally, I'm all for it

as it stands now , I can not visit my home town (NYC) because of their idiotic
un constitutional gun laws.
If it passes muster with the NRA legal crew, it's probably ok.

 

[carebear]

What fed.gov giveth, fed.gov can take away.

Besides being totally unrealistic, federally secured/mandated Vermont carry would have that risk.

I'll take Nat'l. reciprocity if it comes (and as the present bill has some "what if" problems but nothing actual in writing of danger, I'll take it in this format) but I'd hate to turn actual licensing over to a gov't I can't control on a local/state level.

 

[IndianaDean]

The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

 

[ElTacoGrande]

WHY I'M ALL FOR IT

We can make legal arguments all day long but at the end of the day, it comes down to culture. If we end up with a society where the vast majority of people hate guns and are afraid of guns, we're going to lose, no matter what it says on some dusty old piece of paper. Remember, there are 99% gun bans in Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. These have all stood up to 2nd amend court challenges. People in those places are afraid of guns and hate them because they are ignorant about them, and they associate them only with "bad people". Logic doesn't matter here.

The reason why CCW reform is the most important and decisive victory in the recent history of the gun rights movement is that it wins the culture war. Suddenly, the State has said, in a formal and official way, that it is legitimate and good for citizens to carry arms and to defend themselves. That means that guns are NOT just being carried by bad people. The State has given its blessing to people being armed.

That is a tremendous victory, and it leads to some other important consequences, too. It creates a constiuency of gun-carriers. These are people who will be angry if guns are banned. People who carry every day don't want to give that up. These will be angry single-issue voters. Elections are usually decided by some close margins, so even if only 1% of the people CCW, that's enough to tip an election, if they are angry and motivated. Conversely, if they passed more restrictions on guns in a place like NYC or Chicago, very few people would care because, well, there are so few gun owners. Finally, we know that the technique of gun banners is to ban one milimeter at a time. Banning flash hiders, pistol grips, etc. Well, if people are carrying guns around as part of their normal routine, then it because hard to get people riled up over flash hiders. I mean, what's the point, there are already armed people all over the place!

And that's why I support this bill. It will bring real-world practical legitimacy to carrying guns to every state in the US. Great, so we have (or will soon have, go WI!) CCW in almost every state now except CA, NY, NJ and a few other small ones. That's wonderful. But CA and NY have the most electoral votes of any state, and they are also opinion leaders of the country and the world. And guess what, CCW reform is going to be a long shot in CA and NY. This is the most direct way we can achieve it.

Bottom line: CCW ends the debate on gun control, it creates a constituency of gun owners / packers, and it legitimizes self defense and gun ownership, and we need those victories in the large and powerful states of CA and NY, and this is the best or only shot we have at that.

It's pretty hard to pant about "sporting use" when the Authorities are issuing written permits that allow us to shoot people who threaten our lives, right?

Your gun rights are not safe anywhere in the country if the "gun rights culture wars" are lost decisively in big powerful states.

 

[Gray Peterson]

A few words folks

HR 4547, the NRA, and Cliff Stearns are basically "Johnnie Come Latelies" in this situation. A few things. HR4547 does not establish "national standards" nationwide. It only establishes it in places where CCW permits are NOT issued, which is a problem for Vermont residents, but not in the way that you think.

Let's go through some of the issues with both bills, truthes:

1) CLAIM:It will allow Congress to ban or regulate concealed carry.

The fact is, folks, they already do, and they certainly won't need this bill to do so. They already ban carry in Federal Courthouses, military bases (without authorization), and Federal Buildings (that's a matter of debate on that one). Do you think that the anti-gunners NEED this bill to ban CCW or make it discretionary nationwide? That's news to me. I certainly don't see any efforts to use 18USC926A's "precedent" to ban interstate transportation of firearms at all.

2) CLAIM: HR4547 would establish a "national standards" that will restrict concealed carry in all states.

First, the bill only does that in states that don't issue concealed carry. The former revisions of this bill in the years past required having a home state permit, but this new version does not anymore. Also, many of you misunderstand the point of both of these bills. There is no "punishment" as far as the federal government goes. Let's give this as an example:

18USC926A protects your right to carry a firearm in your car across a state that prohibits it as long as you carry it in a manner perscribed by law. Let's say, for example, you're in New York. You decide to dalley around New York rather than continue to transport your firearm across the state to, say, Vermont.

You're in violation of New York law at this point. The question is, are you VIOLATING 926A? The answer is no. The law, just like both HR1243 and HR4547, is a "notwithstanding any state or local law" bill. 926A, along with these bills, PROTECT you from concealed carry bans and handgun registration/licensing requirements that may exist at the state and local level while you travel, and does not by itself provide a punishment.

3) CLAIM: Both HR1243 and HR4547 are unconstitutional because it's overreaching federal power.

I might point out that gun owners on this site benefit from FOPA86's protections. There is no way to argue that HR1243 is unconstitutional yet 18USC926A is constitution. It uses the same exact stated powers. In fact, HR1243 is most likely more rooted in constitutionality than 18USC926A, or LEOSA codified in 18USC926B and C, due to the "full faith and credit" clause.

4) CLAIM: HR1243 is a better bill, and better supported.

Agreed. HR1243 is a better solution because it leaves to each state to the extent where guns are allowed, even in states that prohibit concealed carry entirely. Granted, this power could be abused, however the intent of this bill is clear, and likely any such sheninigans by Illinois or New York or California or any other hugely anti-gun state to frustrate the Congressional intent behind either HR1243 or HR4547 would likely get tossed.

 

[RealGun]

there are 99% gun bans in Washington DC, NYC and Chicago. These have all stood up to 2nd amend court challenges.

I don't believe that is factual. Can you cite cases? What court has ever said the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply? Most of the time, the 2A is not even pleaded by the defendant. The 2A question has methodically been kept out of the appellate system.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Where exactly do you find in the text of the law as written now that FL would be required to do anything?

I could go either way on the bill itself but I'm not finding any such requirement.

I said that though it was voluntary, my feeling is that Florida, along with most other CCW states, would feel a great pressure to adopt the new standards so as to "get with the program."

 

[Gray Peterson]

I said that though it was voluntary, my feeling is that Florida, along with most other CCW states, would feel a great pressure to adopt the new standards so as to "get with the program."

Great pressure? By who? Anti-gunners? Who are these all powerful boogeymen that opponents of this legislation think will use these bills to somehow destroy our carry rights nationwide?

Read my post, HR4547 makes CLEAR that the "national standard" has to do with the removal of the protection of being popped for a state illegal carry charge in places that DO NOT issue permits. Right now, by the end of the year, that's likely going to be only 2 states, Wisconsin and Illinois? Vermont doesn't issue permits either, however people visiting Vermont do NOT need this bill's protection.

That being said, I don't support HR4547, I support HR1243. HR4547 is an inferior bill due to the "national standard" in terms of places you cannot carry in states that don't allow CCW, which is stupid and will be a moot in 5 years anymore, at the most.

HR1243 does it right by basically stating that you have to honor the "places you cannot carry a firearm at all" provisions of state law, and don't have to honor the actual carry ban itself. For example, Wisconsin prohibits ALL carry of firearms in "taverns" and government buildings, because open carry there is legal except in those particular places on foot. Concealed carry is banned there entirely. Does it or does it not make more sense than Congress stating that the provisions "don't apply if you carry in a nice restaurant?".

 

[Highland Ranger]

The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

You'd still be able to get a Florida non-resident permit which would be valid in the other states.

Right now, its how those of us in the Nanny States pretend we're free when we travel . . . . .

Other states also issue permits to non-residents.

 

[RealGun]

You'd still be able to get a Florida non-resident permit which would be valid in the other states.

Right now, its how those of us in the Nanny States pretend we're free when we travel . . . . .

Other states also issue permits to non-residents.

Does FL not require that you have a license in your home State? I am looking at the New Hampshire application, which I need for Georgia CCW, and it asks for home State permit number.

Quoting the Florida page on packing.org:

"Reciprocal privileges are granted to resident licensee/permitee of states as indicated below. The Attorney General has authority to enter into agreements with other states."

* Alabama

* Alaska

* Arizona

* Arkansas

* Colorado

* Delaware

* Georgia

* Idaho

* Indiana

* Kentucky

* Louisiana

* Michigan

* Mississippi

* Missouri

* Montana

* New Hampshire

* New Mexico

* North Carolina

* North Dakota

* Ohio

* Oklahoma

* Pennsylvania

* South Dakota

* Tennessee

* Texas

* Utah

* Virginia

* Wyoming

 

[Inoxmark]

The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

It is not. However, pro-CCW movement in these states (including my state of CA) would get a huge boost on the grounds of "hundreds of thousands of visitors are legally allowed to carry firearms, why aren't our own residents? Are we less trustworthy than them?"

 

[Highland Ranger]

No - Florida non-resident permit is an independent process - no home state permit is needed. Reciprocity is a separate issue.

Its been a while but I believe to get the permit you need:

- filled out application, notarized
- fingerprint cards
- passport photos
- a nominal fee
- proof of firearms safety training (nra basic handgun course qualifies)

Its shall issue, so if you fill out the app correctly and include all attachments and your background check comes back ok, you get your permit 60 or 90 days later.

There are other states that do this but right now, Florida gives you the most bang (reciprocity) for the buck.

See here for all the information and to request forms: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/index.html

See the packing.org page as well

Get one!

 

[Highland Ranger]

It is not. However, pro-CCW movement in these states (including my state of CA) would get a huge boost on the grounds of "hundreds of thousands of visitors are legally allowed to carry firearms, why aren't our own residents? Are we less trustworthy than them?"

True and in the meantime, if I am reading this correctly and barring any changes, you could apply for a Florida permit and use that in your home state.

 

[Firethorn]

Does FL not require that you have a license in your home State? I am looking at the New Hampshire application, which I need for Georgia CCW, and it asks for home State permit number.

If you have a license in the states listed, you do not normally need a Florida CCW. Florida Law treats those state's permits the same as a florida one.

Examples:

1. I have a ND CCW. I can carry concealed in florida without any extra permits
2. I live in Nebrasksa, which has no permit process. I can apply for a florida one.

Where it might help is that more states recognize florida's permit than some other state's. For example, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming are all listed as recipical for Florida, but not North Dakota.

However, getting a ND permit was a lot easier as I'm now a ND resident, and the only states I frequent are ND, SD, FL, and NE. My permit's good in all but NE, and under proposed legislation, NE isn't going to have any recipicality or non-resident permitting for a while.

Of course, if my parents move out of NE like they're talking about, well, I won't have any reason to go back there.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

The reason why CCW reform is the most important and decisive victory in the recent history of the gun rights movement is that it wins the culture war. Suddenly, the State has said, in a formal and official way, that it is legitimate and good for citizens to carry arms and to defend themselves. That means that guns are NOT just being carried by bad people. The State has given its blessing to people being armed.


[snipped]

Bottom line: CCW ends the debate on gun control, it creates a constituency of gun owners / packers, and it legitimizes self defense and gun ownership, and we need those victories in the large and powerful states of CA and NY, and this is the best or only shot we have at that.

It's pretty hard to pant about "sporting use" when the Authorities are issuing written permits that allow us to shoot people who threaten our lives, right?

Your gun rights are not safe anywhere in the country if the "gun rights culture wars" are lost decisively in big powerful states.

I disagree.



1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.


2] It is bad enough that the current concealed carry set-up is one of a priviledge, not a RIGHT. The State "gives" us this priviledge like the good little serfs that we are. That is fundamentally wrong. Only 1 State has crossed that line and has carry without licensing.


CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.



I added some bold and underlines to the parts of that quote where I have a problem. We need to get out of the mode where we accept concealed carry only IF we accept that it is a gift from our masters - the State, not a creator given Right.



National carry would do more of the same - it would add more power, regulation and restriction by involving the Federal government. The Feds are the worst of the worst.



We'd benefit FAR more by concentrating our efforts on an already-PRO gun state and taking their existing concealed carry and turning it into Vermont style carry!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Because then we'd not legitmize the concept that the government gives us our priveledge, but instead, legitimize that the right to carry is a RIGHT independent of governments.



That is where we need to be strategically. NOT trying to ram restricted, Government-permissible concealed carry on the ANTI-gun states so that our "oppressed" brother and sister pro-gunnies can carry a gun too.


Strategy my friends. Pick a pro-gun state, and try and get a 2nd Vermont going. That is the key to success. Not giving more rights to the government.

 

[carebear]

Alaska IS the 2nd Vermont carry. More are probably on the way. Neither of these bills would prevent that from continuing to occur. They don't proscribe states from continuing to loosen their own laws, they would in fact give ammo to the "everybody else is doing it" argument in the dark blue states.

Strategy means having multiple angles of attack and forcing the enemy to react our to gun rights legislation on the local, state and federal level simultaneously, not setting up individual, head-to-head battles, one at a time to be won or lost by whomever can concentrate more resources.

Get them so busy writing letters to stop our bills that they don't press for new ones of their own.

All or nothing, all at once isn't good strategy.

 

[mp510]

Hawkeye, etc... congress really could ban ccw whenever they wanted, regardless of the constitutionality. It would be a while for the court system to fix any such ban, and that would be provided that the executive branch, which is in charge really gives a care to the executive branch.

On topic, the same could happen if national CCW reciprocity were established. Chicago has chosen not to recognize the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act (according to America's 1st Freedom Magazine). What is to stop some city, may San Francisco, or DC from doing the same thing, and skrewing the law abiding carrier?

What I would be in support of, is making the ccw permit system like the cdl, where states must issue permits to anyone who meets the criteria, and can pass the tests. However, I believe that each state ought be able to make less lenient regulations (ie VT carry) for intrastate purposes shall they so choose. Included should be national reciprocity, and local freedom to everyone.

 

[scout26]

The problem with it from what I see is folks from Illinois, Wisconsin, etc would still not be able to carry anywhere else in the US because their own states won't give them the right. How is that fair?

Because even if Illinois won't enact concealed carry, I can get a PA Non-Resident permit ($20 good fro 5 years), then I can carry in Illinois and Daley and Blago will soil themselves.

Plus, they can watch as the CCW licence fees flow out of state. I would bet they do a quick about face once they sniff the money......

 

[Gray Peterson]

I disagree.

1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.

Laughible. We all thought that Maryland would be absolutely impossible, but now it looks like shall-issue CCW will pass there within the next few years, if not this year.

CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.

Have you read HR1243? Any state that allows their citizens to carry without a permit generally, like Vermont and Alaska would be able to carry nationwide on the strength of their residency.

 

[IndianaDean]

Because even if Illinois won't enact concealed carry, I can get a PA Non-Resident permit ($20 good fro 5 years), then I can carry in Illinois and Daley and Blago will soil themselves.

Plus, they can watch as the CCW licence fees flow out of state. I would bet they do a quick about face once they sniff the money......

I was not aware you could get a non-resident permit in any state though unless you already had a permit in your home state.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

I was not aware you could get a non-resident permit in any state though unless you already had a permit in your home state.

No, Florida only requires a safety course from your home state. No home state CCW license is required, and the hunter safety course suffices for the safety course requirement. That's what I used to get my Florida CCW license before I moved here, i.e., my hunter safety course ID card. I happen also to already have had a CCW license in New York, but the New York license, if you can believe it, didnt' require a safety course of any sort, only a clean record and an issuing agency who likes the looks of your face. If they don't like your face, though, even if you have a clean record, they are at liberty to deny the license.

 

[Highland Ranger]

NRA handgun course qualifies as well. Doesn't have to be from home state.

 

[gunsmith]

it's a good bill

please support so I can visit my family in New York City

 

[ElTacoGrande]

1] Allowing concealed carry will not create the cultural shift in places like California and NY or Mass. Not going to happen. It's like saying if Saudi Arabia allowed the practice of Christianity in their nation, they'd become Christian.

If they allowed (ie, the government officially endorsed) the practice of Christianity in SA, it wouldn't become Christian but they would start tolerating Christians and that would be a big step.

2] It is bad enough that the current concealed carry set-up is one of a priviledge, not a RIGHT. The State "gives" us this priviledge like the good little serfs that we are. That is fundamentally wrong. Only 1 State has crossed that line and has carry without licensing.

This argument comes up all the time with CCW. "Don't support that CCW bill because it requires a permit to carry!" That's good in theory but in the real world, we have to deal with what we've got, which is that tough states like Wisconsin and many others are not suddenly going to go Vermont. They need to get there incrementaly, and having a few years of success with a permit system is one way to get there.

We need to look for small incremental victories rather than going for one big ultimate victory, which would be a SCOTUS case that throws out all the gun control laws in the US and says that we can carry without permits. Not going to happen!

CARRY WITHOUT LICENSING. That my fellow THR'ers is THE GOAL. Because that is the only, only, only true way concealed carry can exist. It is the only way it is compatible with a properly interpreted 2nd Amendment.

And the only way we will get there is by creating a culture shift, and a federal CCW law like this will create that shift in the two places where it is most needed: CA and NY.

Let's get this bill PASSED. As a Californiano, I can tell you that if this bill passes, it WILL create a cultural shift in LA and SF, which are the two main cities for it. There are a lot of people in both those cities who would like to CCW but those two cities have corrupt entrenched sheriffs who won't write permits.

In fact, there are already 45k license holders in CA, mostly in rural counties, so you can't tell me that CA will never "get" CCW. We already have it. This bill will just push us further towards a state shall-issue program.

 

[IndianaDean]

My understanding is national reciprocity would only exist in states that have the right to carry. Therefore, noone in Illinois would be able to carry, nor would anyone else from any other state be allowed to carry in Illinois. There would be no change for states that do not grant ccw.